Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot. He had no support in the parliamentary labour party. It shows how unfit labour are that they put him there with a system in place that allowed entryists to vote for him. It would be insane of any rational Labour MP to serve under Corbyn. The real damage is done no matter what the result. The loony left will have to have packed the vote for Corbyn to win and the only alternatives have shown themselves to be worse than useless and will have to deal with a totally split party. Corbyn wants to split the party of course.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
No they have not, indeed Major lost in 1997 after having privatised the railways. Voters vote on a whole range of issues, on welfare and immigration and cutting inheritance tax etc they lean more right, but if a referendum was passed on renationalising the railways it would pass overwhelmingly
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
Sure - the popular centre perhaps, but nationalisation hasn't been thought of as the centre ground for a long, long time politically. These areas are somewhat anathema to economic credibility too, and Labour hardly need to stray further in that area.
British Gas was not privatised until 1986, British Rail until 1993, so those industries were nationalised even for most of the Thatcher years
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
I suspect that the March About Anything brigade will continue to fill this gap for the Tories. Tories don't tend to embark on mass protests - a key difference in 2000s.
When there is no effective opposition or no chance of a change through voting. The opposition eventually moves from parliamentary politics to resistance or dissent, expressed in action.
As could be seen by farmers and hauliers in 2000 for example.
Plato
The Countyside Alliance and pro Support for Fox Hunting were quite effective in getting people on the streets. The Hauliers and farmers had the government completely in disarray in 2000.
The Unions can do none of what they achieved with current and proposed legislation. So the dissent will be not from them .
Plato that is true.
However we have had only one period in the last one hundred years, when the Conservative Party Supporters felt they had no chance in a GE of a majority that was the 1997 to 2003 period. The left of center has had that feeling a lot more.
1966, 1945
1966 they were back in power in 1970 1945 back in power 1951.
Hardly a feeling that the could not win , not like 97 to 2003.
The Tories lost in 1964 too and after 1945 in 1950. While the Tories could not win in 1997 and 2001 many Tories felt they had a chance in 2005
If the father did nothing wrong and the child did nothing wrong why name them? What would be wrong with saying that the charity is believed to have contributed to the school fees of the child of beelzibub's chauffeur's?
No names and certainly no pixilated photo. Try putting yourself into the position of the young girl.
No need for a photo of the girl certainly. But there is a public interest in the possible misuse of public money by a charity which was able to bypass normal rules because of its access to ministers. You seem to want to suppress a story because, well why exactly
It's a good investigative story for The Mail to be running. This charity should have been helping needy impoverished children not subsidising private education fees.
The headache for Dauntsey's, a school that has done admirable work befitting it's charitable status, and was part of the Lavington Link offering 6th form places to State School pupils is the link between the it's governing body and Kids Company. Was the Chairman of the Governers, and Vice Chair of KC aware of any conflict of interest, and if so, did he excuse himself from any discussion concerning the award of any bursaries?
Corbyn's four city tour of Scotland this week could impact the result of the SLAB leadership contest. With Kezia and John McT set against Corbyn and Ken backing him, the scene is set for a lively last week of voting in Scotland. Ken is still sounding up beat:
A knock on impact of last week's council elections in Glasgow is a call for the Glasgow Council leader to step down - as ever SLAB is battling its main enemy - itself:
" Half of Matheson’s councillors even signed a demand for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to vote in a new leader, prompting Labour HQ to step in and suppress the rebellion. However Scottish Secretary Brian Roy is understood to have reassured the rebels last week that Matheson is on his way out. "
I have to confess that if I had simply guessed I would have expected it to be the other way around with Kezia supporting Corbyn and Ken more of a Brownite supporting Cooper or Burnham.
SLAB are in a terrible place. I think that a disunited Labour party with little prospect of power under Corbyn would not gain seats back. SLAB need a serious chance of a Labour government and Corbyn does not provide it.
Sadly as Kezia is being advised by John McT and Blair McD, she's being dragged into fighting Blairism's last stand with Kendal. Should Ken pull it off Ladbrokes are going to look like a bunch of numpties with their last odds before closing the book being Kezia 1/50 and Ken 12/1.
Agree that Corbyn wouldn't help SLAB gain seats - I think he'd be more comfortable doing business with the SNP than a toxic SLAB.
SLAB would be a branch of Corbyn led Labour so of course he wants SLAB to win. Indeed, in Scotland he has been touring with a message of 'Come back to Labour and we'll unite to fight austerity' urging those who defected to the SNP to return to SLAB under his leadership http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-come-back-labour-6184153
A Corbyn-Macintosh leadership of UK Labour and SLAB respectively could be a real threat to the SNP in the Central Belt
The first problem Corbyn would have to deal with is a hostile SLAB, to have any hope of a Labour recovery in Scotland he would need to destroy the existing SLAB party machine. Suffice to say, these folks would not give up without a fight and seem to enjoy infighting in public. I don't think you quite appreciate how bad shape SLAB are in, particularly in the Central belt - they have zero credibility at the moment.
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot. He had no support in the parliamentary labour party. It shows how unfit labour are that they put him there with a system in place that allowed entryists to vote for him. It would be insane of any rational Labour MP to serve under Corbyn. The real damage is done no matter what the result. The loony left will have to have packed the vote for Corbyn to win and the only alternatives have shown themselves to be worse than useless and will have to deal with a totally split party. Corbyn wants to split the party of course.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
I agree Corbyn and UKIP both represent the views of large numbers of voters, even if they may not go down well in most of the Westminster village
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
But they will vote for public schoolboy Farage? Why would they not vote Labour... like always? And by that I mean in significant numbers? And if Farage adopts lefty policies to attract them...? Why would others, not of the Left, then vote UKIP? Is UKIP left or right? Or racist? How many WWC, ie racists, will vote UKIP in these Labour 'heartlands'? I look forward to Farage reinventing himself as Donald Trump (or was it the other way round?).
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot. He had no support in the parliamentary labour party. It shows how unfit labour are that they put him there with a system in place that allowed entryists to vote for him. It would be insane of any rational Labour MP to serve under Corbyn. The real damage is done no matter what the result. The loony left will have to have packed the vote for Corbyn to win and the only alternatives have shown themselves to be worse than useless and will have to deal with a totally split party. Corbyn wants to split the party of course.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
Well we have had a lot of overlap on Economic Liberalism from 1994 to 2015 and on Trade Union legislation from the Conservatives, New Labour, and the Lib Dems. Maybe this hegemony is starting to unravel.
Apart from the UK and New Zealand and maybe Ireland it has been centre left governments which have introduced gay marriage. The socialists in Spain and France, the Social Democrats in Sweden, the Liberals in Canada, Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court, the ANC in South Africa and so on
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
It does look as if we have a further "peoples army" arising to match the Kippers and the Nats. What they all have in common is that they all dislike the Westminster elite's consensus.
It is going to be an interesting election, but I think that Corbyn will need an able team around him to implement what he has in mind. There may well be many outside parliament to staff the back office, but the shadow cabinet may be a problem. The fact that all Deputy candidates are willing to serve is a positive sign. It is possible that Cooper and/or Cooper, and even Liz Kendall may come around. Labour politicians like public solidarity, whatever their private views.
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot. He had no support in the parliamentary labour party. It shows how unfit labour are that they put him there with a system in place that allowed entryists to vote for him. It would be insane of any rational Labour MP to serve under Corbyn. The real damage is done no matter what the result. The loony left will have to have packed the vote for Corbyn to win and the only alternatives have shown themselves to be worse than useless and will have to deal with a totally split party. Corbyn wants to split the party of course.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
Well we have had a lot of overlap on Economic Liberalism from 1994 to 2015 and on Trade Union legislation from the Conservatives, New Labour, and the Lib Dems. Maybe this hegemony is starting to unravel.
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
Cheap energy is important to the Left...? Will they be supporting fracking then? Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
Some of his views are popular, that does not make them the centre ground.
The public continue to support the death penalty, doesn't make that the centre ground.
They also support a complete ban on immigration for two years according to that YouGov(?) graphic a week ago.
Again, not the centre ground.
If the centre ground always won elections Nick Clegg and the LDs would have won a landslide!
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
No they have not, indeed Major lost in 1997 after having privatised the railways. Voters vote on a whole range of issues, on welfare and immigration and cutting inheritance tax etc they lean more right, but if a referendum was passed on renationalising the railways it would pass overwhelmingly
Don't be so sure. The arguments have not really been rehearsed yet - not that most of the pro-renationalisation supporters really seem to have any coherent arguments except "we'll magically reduce ticket prices" and "privatisation sux". At the moment any such polling would simply be people responding: "I think I'm paying too much, perhaps if we change things I'll pay less."
If there were to be a referendum, then the arguments would be rehearsed, and perhaps, just perhaps, the successes of privatisation will be heard, and the memories of BR reheated.
I could be persuaded in favour of renationalisation - or of another model, such as concessions instead of franchises. Unfortunately it seems that the pro-renationalisation people don't really have any idea of what it means - which is why they so often forget railfreight, ROSCOs, Open Access and 101 other things that complicate such a move.
Basically, the majority are clueless. They ought to read more of Christian Wolmar's output - whilst I don't always agree with him, he at least speaks from a knowledgeable position.
If the father did nothing wrong and the child did nothing wrong why name them? What would be wrong with saying that the charity is believed to have contributed to the school fees of the child of beelzibub's chauffeur's?
No names and certainly no pixilated photo. Try putting yourself into the position of the young girl.
No need for a photo of the girl certainly. But there is a public interest in the possible misuse of public money by a charity which was able to bypass normal rules because of its access to ministers. You seem to want to suppress a story because, well why exactly
It's a good investigative story for The Mail to be running. This charity should have been helping needy impoverished children not subsidising private education fees.
The headache for Dauntsey's, a school that has done admirable work befitting it's charitable status, and was part of the Lavington Link offering 6th form places to State School pupils is the link between the it's governing body and Kids Company. Was the Chairman of the Governers, and Vice Chair of KC aware of any conflict of interest, and if so, did he excuse himself from any discussion concerning the award of any bursaries?
Surely the problem here was the yardstick for success was how much money they could burn through. "See, we are doing such a good job we need another £3 million...." *Rattles charity bucket in the Govt's face*
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
But they will vote for public schoolboy Farage? Why would they not vote Labour... like always? And by that I mean in significant numbers? And if Farage adopts lefty policies to attract them...? Why would others, not of the Left, then vote UKIP? Is UKIP left or right? Or racist? How many WWC, ie racists, will vote UKIP in these Labour 'heartlands'? I look forward to Farage reinventing himself as Donald Trump (or was it the other way round?).
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Indeed. It's not old school City gentlemen that the traditional working class despise, it is as you say, the sneering 'metropolitan' public/fourth sector "our values are the only values" type.
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
But they will vote for public schoolboy Farage? Why would they not vote Labour... like always? And by that I mean in significant numbers? And if Farage adopts lefty policies to attract them...? Why would others, not of the Left, then vote UKIP? Is UKIP left or right? Or racist? How many WWC, ie racists, will vote UKIP in these Labour 'heartlands'? I look forward to Farage reinventing himself as Donald Trump (or was it the other way round?).
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Farage was never a stockbroker, he used to buy and sell metals. Incidentally, he worked in Milan for many years and is remembered fondly by the locals.
A knock on impact of last week's council elections in Glasgow is a call for the Glasgow Council leader to step down - as ever SLAB is battling its main enemy - itself:
" Half of Matheson’s councillors even signed a demand for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to vote in a new leader, prompting Labour HQ to step in and suppress the rebellion. However Scottish Secretary Brian Roy is understood to have reassured the rebels last week that Matheson is on his way out. "
I have to confess that if I had simply guessed I would have expected it to be the other way around with Kezia supporting Corbyn and Ken more of a Brownite supporting Cooper or Burnham.
SLAB are in a terrible place. I think that a disunited Labour party with little prospect of power under Corbyn would not gain seats back. SLAB need a serious chance of a Labour government and Corbyn does not provide it.
SLAB would be a branch of Corbyn led Labour so of course he wants SLAB to win. Indeed, in Scotland he has been touring with a message of 'Come back to Labour and we'll unite to fight austerity' urging those who defected to the SNP to return to SLAB under his leadership http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-come-back-labour-6184153
A Corbyn-Macintosh leadership of UK Labour and SLAB respectively could be a real threat to the SNP in the Central Belt
The first problem Corbyn would have to deal with is a hostile SLAB, to have any hope of a Labour recovery in Scotland he would need to destroy the existing SLAB party machine. Suffice to say, these folks would not give up without a fight and seem to enjoy infighting in public. I don't think you quite appreciate how bad shape SLAB are in, particularly in the Central belt - they have zero credibility at the moment.
If Corbyn and Macintosh win the existing SLAB party machine will in effect have been demolished anyway, so they can start afresh with a new party organisation. Corbyn and Macintosh would totally change the landscape, it would be the SNP who then become the establishment party, while they outflank them on the left
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
This is a really common but demeaning view of the British white working class. They are not all racists or even people who resent diversity. For one thing, they built the trade unions. They are split across three parties with diverse views on diversity - contrast this to the white upper-middle-class, whose political complexion is much more uniform.
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Indeed. It's not old school City gentlemen that the traditional working class despise, it is as you say, the sneering 'metropolitan' public/fourth sector "our values are the only values" type.
True, but they are not exactly great fans of City bankers either at the moment
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
No they have not, indeed Major lost in 1997 after having privatised the railways. Voters vote on a whole range of issues, on welfare and immigration and cutting inheritance tax etc they lean more right, but if a referendum was passed on renationalising the railways it would pass overwhelmingly
Don't be so sure. The arguments have not really been rehearsed yet - not that most of the pro-renationalisation supporters really seem to have any coherent arguments except "we'll magically reduce ticket prices" and "privatisation sux". At the moment any such polling would simply be people responding: "I think I'm paying too much, perhaps if we change things I'll pay less."
If there were to be a referendum, then the arguments would be rehearsed, and perhaps, just perhaps, the successes of privatisation will be heard, and the memories of BR reheated.
I could be persuaded in favour of renationalisation - or of another model, such as concessions instead of franchises. Unfortunately it seems that the pro-renationalisation people don't really have any idea of what it means - which is why they so often forget railfreight, ROSCOs, Open Access and 101 other things that complicate such a move.
Basically, the majority are clueless. They ought to read more of Christian Wolmar's output - whilst I don't always agree with him, he at least speaks from a knowledgeable position.
Well of course any election could change over the course of a campaign, but on present polling if a referendum on rail nationalisation were held tomorrow it would pass
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
Cheap energy is important to the Left...? Will they be supporting fracking then? Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
I think Corbyn is more likely to balance the books than either Burnham or Cooper (possibly not Kendall). He is quite openly in favour of higher taxes to fund higher spending, his is not Brownite smoke and mirrors promising low taxes and higher spending.
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
Cheap energy is important to the Left...? Will they be supporting fracking then? Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
I think Corbyn is more likely to balance the books than either Burnham or Cooper (possibly not Kendall). He is quite openly in favour of higher taxes to fund higher spending, his is not Brownite smoke and mirrors promising low taxes and higher spending.
Unfortunately, Corbyn forgets at his peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. The hoped for higher tax take would prove illusory, and he would end up going ever further down the line to raise taxes on an ever squeezed middle.
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Indeed. It's not old school City gentlemen that the traditional working class despise, it is as you say, the sneering 'metropolitan' public/fourth sector "our values are the only values" type.
True, but they are not exactly great fans of City bankers either at the moment
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
Cheap energy is important to the Left...? Will they be supporting fracking then? Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
I think Corbyn is more likely to balance the books than either Burnham or Cooper (possibly not Kendall). He is quite openly in favour of higher taxes to fund higher spending, his is not Brownite smoke and mirrors promising low taxes and higher spending.
Unfortunately, Corbyn forgets at his peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. The hoped for higher tax take would prove illusory, and he would end up going ever further down the line to raise taxes on an ever squeezed middle.
I think that is probably correct. Nonetheless he does have plans to fund his spending by taxation rather than borrowing. I do not think he wants the bond markets controlling his government. By 2020 the budget may well be back in surplus too.
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
I think UKIP, the LibDems and the Conservatives would all benefit from a Corbyn victory. In UKIP's case, it would might open up swathes of the North where Labour had been a one party state for so long. In the case of the LibDems, it might mean they got a certain portion of their tactical votes back in places like South West London. The obvious losers would be the Greens, as now there would be two parties going after the batshit cray vote.
UKIP going even more lefty and anti black, coloured, asian muslim etc (I'm sure it is a very long list of minorities they are anti) in order to hoover up all these alleged working class racists will only take them so far.
Anther piece of rubbish written by @flightpath01. Although it's true that UKIP is firmly against Islam as a political force.
For what other reason should all these swathes of what are euphemistically called the White Working Class vote UKIP ? Farage want to abolish the NHS - is that something they are clamouring for?
Because they won't vote Conservative, and a far-left Labour Party is unappealing to them.
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
Indeed. It's not old school City gentlemen that the traditional working class despise, it is as you say, the sneering 'metropolitan' public/fourth sector "our values are the only values" type.
True, but they are not exactly great fans of City bankers either at the moment
They're hardly "old school City gentlemen".
Yes, but that species is virtually extinct and has been since the Big Bang
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
No they have not, indeed Major lost in 1997 after having privatised the railways. Voters vote on a whole range of issues, on welfare and immigration and cutting inheritance tax etc they lean more right, but if a referendum was passed on renationalising the railways it would pass overwhelmingly
Don't be so sure. The arguments have not really been rehearsed yet - not that most of the pro-renationalisation supporters really seem to have any coherent arguments except "we'll magically reduce ticket prices" and "privatisation sux". At the moment any such polling would simply be people responding: "I think I'm paying too much, perhaps if we change things I'll pay less."
If there were to be a referendum, then the arguments would be rehearsed, and perhaps, just perhaps, the successes of privatisation will be heard, and the memories of BR reheated.
I could be persuaded in favour of renationalisation - or of another model, such as concessions instead of franchises. Unfortunately it seems that the pro-renationalisation people don't really have any idea of what it means - which is why they so often forget railfreight, ROSCOs, Open Access and 101 other things that complicate such a move.
Basically, the majority are clueless. They ought to read more of Christian Wolmar's output - whilst I don't always agree with him, he at least speaks from a knowledgeable position.
Well of course any election could change over the course of a campaign, but on present polling if a referendum on rail nationalisation were held tomorrow it would pass
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
Corbyn seems to be pretty consistent and rational about his views. The issue is that his views are really quite a long way from those that have been advocated by Labour since the departure of Foot. His views almost seem to be those of a separate party. I'm sure there is some appeal in what he says to segments of the populace, but if it turns out that Corbynism isn't sufficiently popular to achieve electoral success then there's an extraordinarily long road back to the centre ground.
On some issues, eg renationalisation of rail and energy utilities, higher taxes for the rich etc polls suggest Corbyn is the centre ground
But have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly rejected at every election for over twenty years.
No they have not, indeed Major lost in 1997 after having privatised the railways. Voters vote on a whole range of issues, on welfare and immigration and cutting inheritance tax etc they lean more right, but if a referendum was passed on renationalising the railways it would pass overwhelmingly
Don't be so sure. The arguments have not really been rehearsed yet - not that most of the pro-renationalisation supporters really seem to have any coherent arguments except "we'll magically reduce ticket prices" and "privatisation sux". At the moment any such polling would simply be people responding: "I think I'm paying too much, perhaps if we change things I'll pay less."
If there were to be a referendum, then the arguments would be rehearsed, and perhaps, just perhaps, the successes of privatisation will be heard, and the memories of BR reheated.
I could be persuaded in favour of renationalisation - or of another model, such as concessions instead of franchises. Unfortunately it seems that the pro-renationalisation people don't really have any idea of what it means - which is why they so often forget railfreight, ROSCOs, Open Access and 101 other things that complicate such a move.
Basically, the majority are clueless. They ought to read more of Christian Wolmar's output - whilst I don't always agree with him, he at least speaks from a knowledgeable position.
Well of course any election could change over the course of a campaign, but on present polling if a referendum on rail nationalisation were held tomorrow it would pass
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Parsing old Clause Four, it is not the most clearly-drafted clause, but it didn't have to be because it was more a declaration of principle than a war plan. In particular, there is ambiguity in the words "that may be possible": one could have interpreted Clause Four as either gradualist or maximalist socialism depending on your definition of the possible. Clever.
The final sub-clause about "the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry" is uncontroversial; even a Thatcherite would agree with the principle that the public should sensibly control industry through legislation. The problem arises with the naive Webb Marxist omission of a role, let alone protections, for private capital in the first part.
Essentially they ditched Clause Four every time they went into government after co-opting the Liberals' superior solution of the welfare state, so it would be dishonest to return it as is; fortunately for Britain I doubt that is really the agenda. Corbyn seems to realise that they only popular and potentially-successful nationalisation would be rail - and even that would require derogations from the European Commission. The political problem comes when you hand over wads of cash to foreign capitalists. He is correct that they should have SOME principles instead of a Milibandian ragbag of pledges, which is fine when you are as popular as Tony Blair but unappealing when you are not.
" ... he [Corbyn] does have plans to fund his spending by taxation rather than borrowing ..."
To be sure, but he is either deluded or disingenuous when he suggests that those taxes can be raised without the average Joe paying more. I am sure I cannot be the only person on here who can remember when the basic rate of income tax was 33%. To fund Corbyn's dreams of high welfare, nationalisation and public investment we would, I fear, be looking at that sort of level again.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Labour has found 1000 members of other parties so far, and all its LHQ staff are employed weeding them out - such as Left Unity and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition [TUSC].
Another 48 new recruits based in Newcastle are also checking new members. Meanwhile John Mann is trying to run a rival leadership election postal primary in his constituency just involving known Labour supporters! This is bizarre. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4521080.ece
On some issues, gay marriage and so on the centre has moved left.
No
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
I know we had a long debate over parties' records, but left-wing voters backed same-sex marriage before right-wing ones.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
Cheap energy is important to the Left...? Will they be supporting fracking then? Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
I think Corbyn is more likely to balance the books than either Burnham or Cooper (possibly not Kendall). He is quite openly in favour of higher taxes to fund higher spending, his is not Brownite smoke and mirrors promising low taxes and higher spending.
Unfortunately, Corbyn forgets at his peril Marquee Mark's Maxim: money flees taxation. The hoped for higher tax take would prove illusory, and he would end up going ever further down the line to raise taxes on an ever squeezed middle.
I think that is probably correct. Nonetheless he does have plans to fund his spending by taxation rather than borrowing. I do not think he wants the bond markets controlling his government. By 2020 the budget may well be back in surplus too.
If there is a surplus and Corbyn is leader going into the 2020 election, it would be interesting to see whether the Tories would suffer from the electorally underwhelming idea of putting money away to fix the roof versus Corbyn offering to spend it today on all manner of sweeties.... I still think the majority of voters would go for the careful, sensible money option. The economy is just toxic to Labour, whoever is at the helm.
I see that yet again on PB people are confusing racism with culture change. Thought we had got past that ages ago - or are they using the charge of racism for political purposes again.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Labour has found 1000 members of other parties so far, and all its LHQ staff are employed weeding them out - such as Left Unity and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition [TUSC].
Another 48 new recruits based in Newcastle are also checking new members. Meanwhile John Mann is trying to run a rival leadership election postal primary in his constituency just involving known Labour supporters! This is bizarre. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4521080.ece
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
I visited Polegate station (by virtue of it being roughly 50 miles from London) in late 2011
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Eagle is right. If Corbyn wins the most democratic leadership election the party has ever had, one where his candidacy brought in thousands of new members, they just have to make it work as best they can. It would be outrageous if they sabotaged him without giving him a fair shot. He will be the choice of the Labour Party and if they can't accept being part of his party they should join another one.
No Eagle is wrong - all she is being is self serving. Like the rest. Corbyn should never have been on the ballot. He had no support in the parliamentary labour party. It shows how unfit labour are that they put him there with a system in place that allowed entryists to vote for him. It would be insane of any rational Labour MP to serve under Corbyn. The real damage is done no matter what the result. The loony left will have to have packed the vote for Corbyn to win and the only alternatives have shown themselves to be worse than useless and will have to deal with a totally split party. Corbyn wants to split the party of course.
I completely disagree. The purpose of political representatives is to represent the views of the British public, not to represent the views of a narrow political class. While I disagree with his views, there is clearly huge demand for Corbyn-style politics among a large swathe of the country. He has excited and energised people to get involved in politics for the first time in decades. It is thus only right that that swathe of political opinion is represented with a major voice in parliament. It is completely elitist to argue that the views of tens of thousands of voters should be sidelined because of the electoral calculations of a bunch of MPs. Democracy needs to be about more than a forced choice between two options with a large degree of political overlap.
Well we have had a lot of overlap on Economic Liberalism from 1994 to 2015 and on Trade Union legislation from the Conservatives, New Labour, and the Lib Dems. Maybe this hegemony is starting to unravel.
Why 1994?
Presumably: John Smith QC (13 September 1938 – 12 May 1994)
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
It would appear that the privatisation/commercialisation of Exam Boards has not been the best way to improve exam standards. I would favour them being set by universities again, but only by members of the Russell group.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
It would appear that the privatisation/commercialisation of Exam Boards has not been the best way to improve exam standards. I would favour them being set by universities again, but only by members of the Russell group.
It was obviously a move that was going to go wrong. The whole idea of a market in exam boards was barmy. There should be one exam for each subject set by one examiner that is totally removed from influence by HMG.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
Danny565 or Plato or Tyson etc may be better bets on that front. On most issues I am probably slightly to the right of the public eg opposing tax increases, supporting tuition fees, opposing renationalisations, backing grammar schools and free schools, confronting terrorism abroad etc although on immigration I am probably a fraction to their left without being a liberal and on welfare, while I want a more contributory system I also believe in a basic minimum for those who fall on hard times. On the EU and gay marriage and crime and civil liberties and so on I am pretty much dead centre (eg I may support the death penalty, but only for serial killers)
Apologies, I thought you were centre left
Only if you consider Tony Blair centre left!
Well for the average PBer that is probably centre left even if not as leftwing as Danny and Tyson
With the so called intelligentsia of the Labour party preparing to accept Corbyn and so committing sepuku of their party, the thinking rank and file will have nowhere to go except UKIP.
Bringing back clause 4 shows that Corbyn wants a defenceless Britain with open borders to it's many enemies, who state openly that they want to destroy Britain and democracy from within. But then the new fuhrer, Corbyn, has already stated that he is best of friends with Hisbolah (Iran), and Hamas (Iran and ISIS): by his friends shall he be known.
Ridiculous. Iran and ISIS are mortal enemies of each other.
The narcissism of small differences. Both illiberal, both anti-democratic, both anti-Western, both sponsors of terrorism.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
Just as long as they know which arm is left and which is right,
I think you'll find that according to YouTube and Twitter, cat owners are the largest demographic without any manifesto commitments addressing their plight.
It's a national disgrace. Won't somebody think of the kittens?
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
I think you'll find that according to YouTube and Twitter, cat owners are the largest demographic without any manifesto commitments addressing their plight.
It's a national disgrace. Won't somebody think of the kittens?
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
In general, I think public opinion has moved more rightwards than leftwards over 25 years, but as HYUFD points out, there are exceptions to that trend.
I suspect too much is being made of Clause 4 by the commentariat. At the end of the day it did not prevent Labour polling 35.2% in 1992. Had it not been for the Sheffield debacle 36% would have been likely that year.
I think you'll find that according to YouTube and Twitter, cat owners are the largest demographic without any manifesto commitments addressing their plight.
It's a national disgrace. Won't somebody think of the kittens?
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
Well I think that having your cat shot should count as a touch more than criminal damage !
It's actually going to happen isn't it? The mad lefty bloke who they let stand as a sop to the fringe of the party, who didn't even want to win is going to end up as leader. The other candidates were even lending him nominations to get him on the ballot!
I suppose this finally answers the question of what Labour are for. Taking completely unpopular and unworkable policies so they can safely snipe at the Tories from the comfort of opposition.
I think you'll find that according to YouTube and Twitter, cat owners are the largest demographic without any manifesto commitments addressing their plight.
It's a national disgrace. Won't somebody think of the kittens?
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
If Corbyn is going to start renationalising then (eg) he will need to buy out BT, so that's ~£40billion for that.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
I'm generally not in favour of nationalisation. However the East Coast mainline was rather successful and popular and was only nationalised because the private company failed.
"East Coast was a subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways, formed by the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort when National Express was refused further financial support to its National Express East Coast (NXEC) subsidiary and consequently lost its franchise.[3] The franchise was re-nationalised on 14 November 2009, with the intention being that operations would return to a private franchisee by December 2013.[4] In March 2013 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that this would occur in February 2015 instead.[5]"
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
Latest polls show No would still narrowly win an indyref 2
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
I'm generally not in favour of nationalisation. However the East Coast mainline was rather successful and popular and was only nationalised because the private company failed.
"East Coast was a subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways, formed by the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort when National Express was refused further financial support to its National Express East Coast (NXEC) subsidiary and consequently lost its franchise.[3] The franchise was re-nationalised on 14 November 2009, with the intention being that operations would return to a private franchisee by December 2013.[4] In March 2013 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that this would occur in February 2015 instead.[5]"
It's hardly surprising that the government managed to do a better job than the worst run private rail company that went bust.
If they can do it better than the best run ones then I'll be impressed. Of course they couldn't which is what led to privitisation in the first place and a doubling of passenger numbers since.
In general, I think public opinion has moved more rightwards than leftwards over 25 years, but as HYUFD points out, there are exceptions to that trend.
On economics opinion has moved slightly rightward, on social issues slightly leftward
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
I fear SO has been supping at the cup of SeanT nervous nelliedom.
Labour will muddle through once the Unions see what 'getting what they want' means at the ballot box.
And if the Scots wouldn't vote for Independence with oil at $102 they sure as heck aren't going to vote for it at $48 - because Nicola won't ask the question......
We have a fascinating few years ahead of us, it seems: Labour ceasing to exist as a serious political party and the UK just ceasing to exist. In the great scheme of things the former will be no great loss; the latter, though, will be of major consequence. I wonder how we and the rest of the world will react when it happens.
What odds will you offer me: I think the UK will still exist at the date of the next General Election (assuming it is May 2020)
I fear SO has been supping at the cup of SeanT nervous nelliedom.
Labour will muddle through once the Unions see what 'getting what they want' means at the ballot box.
And if the Scots wouldn't vote for Independence with oil at $102 they sure as heck aren't going to vote for it at $48 - because Nicola won't ask the question......
The price of oil is irrelevant to Scotland's economy , Black Douglas said so.
It would appear that the privatisation/commercialisation of Exam Boards has not been the best way to improve exam standards. I would favour them being set by universities again, but only by members of the Russell group.
It was obviously a move that was going to go wrong. The whole idea of a market in exam boards was barmy. There should be one exam for each subject set by one examiner that is totally removed from influence by HMG.
Competition in this way is unhealthy because essentially they are competing to be the most helpful to schools. That means bundling textbooks and course material (from practice papers to complete slideshows for every topic, so that even schoolkids these days ensure the PowerPoint hell once reserved for the nation's middle management class) but it also means giving the game away at conferences, and frankly, just keeping the papers nice and easy.
Having said that, there are serious disadvantages to having a monolithic single exam board. I think it's healthy for schools to have a choice of syllabus, particularly at A-level. The killer disadvantage to having everyone sit exactly the same exam is that it leaves you very exposed to those examiners getting the content "right", in terms of the needs of universities and employers (and also the needs of the kids: a mindnumbingly boring syllabus design may dissuade students from taking that subject). There are subjective judgement calls that there is no single right answer to. There is value (e.g. system resilience) to diversity and maintaining an "organic" nature to education.
In history, for example, which topics and periods should be studied? If there was just one board and all students studied the same list of topics, then everything else would be neglected. Similarly in literature, there is no need for every student in the country to be thoroughly acquainted with exactly the same set texts. In mathematics, should you teach with a theoretical focus (e.g. the OCR exam board's main syllabus) or with a more practical focus (e.g. the alternative "Mathematics for Education and Industry" syllabus that OCR runs)? One might be more suited to a grammar school or academic sixth form, the other might be more suitable where A-level maths is being taught as a subsidiary subject to a BTEC in Engineering, for instance.
"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
The most stunning illustration of the dead hand of the state.
I showed that to one of my lefty mates once and he insisted it was going up anyway due to the tiny uptick in passenger numbers before privitisation. Completely deluded.
Well - yes. But let's be careful about cause and effect. Petrol rationing had a significant effect on passenger numbers, and congestion has had the same effect in the 1990s, although privatised services are more frequent than under the nationalised railway.
The key reason that nationalisation went ahead in 1948 though, even ahead of ideology, was that two of the major railway companies (which should never have been created in 1922 in the first place) were themselves facing collapse, due to a lack of capital and an urgent need for huge investment. They were described, even by their supporters, as hopelessly unwieldy and difficult to manage even before the war. (This was a legacy of grouping, which amalgamated railway companies rather than creating logical railway zones or regions - this meant the LMS operated to Swansea, deep inside GWR territory, and the London and North Eastern Railway controlled access to the west coast of Scotland).
The GWR and the Southern were in a better position, but still not a good one (the Southern, very selflessly, spent a huge amount on modernisation from 1945-7 despite the fact that its shareholders were not going to get much compensation for their shares). It should also be noted that no railway stock had paid an actual dividend since 1913 except - ironically - when they were controlled by the government, who leased the assets on the basis of paying all expenses. In a time of severely straitened finances, it is hard to see who would have bought shares in the railways, which would have left them unviable. The massive growth of private motoring and in particular private bulk road freight haulage was also cutting into the crucial freight aspect of the business (passenger services have never really paid their way) as was the fall in coal exports as other countries expanded their domestic coal mining at lower rates (particularly the Communist and African countries).
Even so ardent an opponent of nationalisation as Michael Bonavia, looking back, agreed that it was probably inevitable that the railways would have been nationalised by about the mid-1950s for these reasons anyway. The question of whether they were well run afterwards is entirely different, and the clear (indeed pretty much indisputable) evidence is that they were not - even Christian Wolmar concedes that. The civil servants in overall charge simply had no idea of what they were doing, no idea of how to manage money, and did not use trains and therefore saw their job as to run down the railways and replace them with roads (if you think that prior to 1958 we had not one motorway in this country, you will see how hard they pushed that idea).
That, to my mind, is the best possible argument against renationalisation - it was immensely damaging to the railways over a long period of time.
To many WWC, the fact that Farage is an ex-stockbroker does not matter - if you want a hate figure for the WWC these days, it is more the public-sector, right-on middle class lefties who tell them how racist they are for not embracing diversity.
This is a really common but demeaning view of the British white working class. They are not all racists or even people who resent diversity. For one thing, they built the trade unions. They are split across three parties with diverse views on diversity - contrast this to the white upper-middle-class, whose political complexion is much more uniform.
Diversity is a code word for 'anti white', its why the council and government shove gold down the mouths of muslim communities in the name of cohesion, while neglecting neighbouring white communities.
See muslims are victims, and colourful and vibrant, they just need a bit of help to cope in a society that is so racist and oppressive to them. White working class however are valueless chavs who knock each other up, take lots of drugs while claiming on the dole. The best thing to happen for them is that their daughters hang around with the colourful and more culturally diverse muslim taxi drivers.
Diversity means their kids not being given a leg up, while some other people round the corner are.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
If Corbyn is going to start renationalising then (eg) he will need to buy out BT, so that's ~£40billion for that.
Why would he waste money on that?
Unless he intends to appropriate it?
Cannot believe he is being considered seriously.
He genuinely believes that everything would be better run by the state. Wouldn't be surprising if he wanted to nationalise the food industry as well given half a chance.
Because the arguments have not been rehearsed. In fact, it sounds as if you don't have any arguments in favour of renationalisation. So go on: what are they?
I oppose rail renationalisation so of course I have no arguments in favour, but I also accept I am in a minority on this issue.
Ah, sorry. It would be good if anyone on here in favour of renationalisation could rehearse their arguments,
I'll give it ago, Mr Jessup.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
Rail nationalisation is unnessecary, and there should be far higher priorities for spending, such as payrises for senior doctors...
The railways should never have been nationalised in the first place let alone renationalised. The passenger numbers declined throughout nationalisation and only recovered after privitisation despite it being a complete bodge job.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
The most stunning illustration of the dead hand of the state.
I showed that to one of my lefty mates once and he insisted it was going up anyway due to the tiny uptick in passenger numbers before privitisation. Completely deluded.
In history, for example, which topics and periods should be studied? If there was just one board and all students studied the same list of topics, then everything else would be neglected. Similarly in literature, there is no need for every student in the country to be thoroughly acquainted with exactly the same set texts. In mathematics, should you teach with a theoretical focus (e.g. the OCR exam board's main syllabus) or with a more practical focus (e.g. the alternative "Mathematics for Education and Industry" syllabus that OCR runs)? One might be more suited to a grammar school or academic sixth form, the other might be more suitable where A-level maths is being taught as a subsidiary subject to a BTEC in Engineering, for instance.
If we had one exam board, I would be obliged to teach a syllabus involving the study of how a local castle had changed over time. It would then be marked by somebody who had not studied the said castle, so they did not know how it had changed over time. I don't think anyone on here needs to have a degree in history to see how that might be a bit problematic.
Fortunately, as I have the choice, I have opted for a different exam board.
"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
Mr. City, could also present the SNP with the opportunity to be the 'real' opposition, or present themselves as such.
Miliband's intellectual self-confidence was not justified when it comes to changing the leadership election rules.
No, the party Corbyn poses a threat to is not the Tories, but the SNP. A Corbyn led Labour could win back swathes of seats in the Central belt the SNP gained in May
Disagree.
A leftwing stance was a necessary, not sufficient, condition for the SNP success. It was driven by the enthusiasm they generated in the referendum campaign and the ability to establish a view that they choice was SNP or "one of the others": i.e. that the other three parties were basically interchangeable.
A Corbyn set of policies won't be sufficient to over-turn the SNP support, although it may mean that voters will at least listen to Labour again in Scotland.
Why were the major rail companies grouped in the first place? Just a general decline in rail profits at the time?
To answer that would take more space and time than I have. However, the key thing is that there were a great many very small railway companies some of which were strategically vital that had been left badly battered by the First World War. The Highland Railway appears to have acted as the trigger - it supplied the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow, and in 1916 it nearly had to suspend operations because it had no functioning locomotives left and could not afford to buy more. But the Cambrian, which carried the nation's pit props, was in a similar shambles. So they were forcibly merged with larger neighbours in the hope that resources would be spread more widely. It didn't work, because (1) they merged companies, not lines, so it ended up a geographical shambles and (2) in transport you get diseconomies of scale, so actually the larger companies were more expensive to run than the smaller ones (plus, again, the profitable coal trade declined in the 1920s due to strikes and the opening of mines in Russia and Poland). Wasn't the first time it had happened either - there was an earlier amalgamation in 1867 that created a number of medium-sized companies, and of course commercial mergers had always been happening from the earliest days.
PS - this was designed to be a half-way house to avoid nationalisation, which was an option seriously considered by the ruling Unionists (Conservatives) under the guidance of Churchill and Bonar Law, for the aforementioned strategic reasons.
"What's your opinion of that filthy rag, the Mirror, lying about the UKIP, candidate which resulted in the loss of his job and home?"
I don't know the story. I'm trying to live the life of the bon viveur now that Labour have imploded so I'm not too in touch. I'll google.....
......But the Mail story is certain to cause a young girl enormous (and possibly lasting) distress through no fault of her own so the UKIP story would have to be pretty awful to compete
I'm sorry, Roger, but I have to disagree
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
TFTFW
the reason why we have seen a proliferation of overweight people on scooters. Too Fat To F*cking Walk.
Why were the major rail companies grouped in the first place? Just a general decline in rail profits at the time?
To answer that would take more space and time than I have. However, the key thing is that there were a great many very small railway companies some of which were strategically vital that had been left badly battered by the First World War. The Highland Railway appears to have acted as the trigger - it supplied the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow, and in 1916 it nearly had to suspend operations because it had no functioning locomotives left and could not afford to buy more. But the Cambrian, which carried the nation's pit props, was in a similar shambles. So they were forcibly merged with larger neighbours in the hope that resources would be spread more widely. It didn't work, because (1) they merged companies, not lines, so it ended up a geographical shambles and (2) in transport you get diseconomies of scale, so actually the larger companies were more expensive to run than the smaller ones (plus, again, the profitable coal trade declined in the 1920s due to strikes and the opening of mines in Russia and Poland). Wasn't the first time it had happened either - there was an earlier amalgamation in 1867 that created a number of medium-sized companies, and of course commercial mergers had always been happening from the earliest days.
Why were the major rail companies grouped in the first place? Just a general decline in rail profits at the time?
To answer that would take more space and time than I have. However, the key thing is that there were a great many very small railway companies some of which were strategically vital that had been left badly battered by the First World War. The Highland Railway appears to have acted as the trigger - it supplied the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow, and in 1916 it nearly had to suspend operations because it had no functioning locomotives left and could not afford to buy more. But the Cambrian, which carried the nation's pit props, was in a similar shambles. So they were forcibly merged with larger neighbours in the hope that resources would be spread more widely. It didn't work, because (1) they merged companies, not lines, so it ended up a geographical shambles and (2) in transport you get diseconomies of scale, so actually the larger companies were more expensive to run than the smaller ones (plus, again, the profitable coal trade declined in the 1920s due to strikes and the opening of mines in Russia and Poland). Wasn't the first time it had happened either - there was an earlier amalgamation in 1867 that created a number of medium-sized companies, and of course commercial mergers had always been happening from the earliest days.
Mr. Notme, it always baffles me to see such fat people. It must take horrendous effort to gain so much weight.
Edited extra bit: someone [forget who] asked for a picture of the newly acquired hound.
I think 'acceptance' is part of the problem, there seems to be no shame to getting yourself to thirty stone, and some kind of belief that everyone should adjust themselves to suit you. At least Camel Batwoman is/was gainfully employed. There was a show i watched in which the whole thing was a scam between a husband and wife, she was fat (though not too fat she couldnt live a normal life and work) and he was a carer. Neither of them worked. Since we are continuously being told how those in poverty, on benefits in the UK are heavily dependent on foodbanks, you have to ask yourself how come this couple could have so much surplus income for her to eat so much.
She would have to eat 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day to just sustain herself at that weight.
Comments
Left wing regimes still oppress gay marriage. Tories voted for it.
My issue as in my last post is that "popular=centre" involves thinking of everything issue by issue.
The reason popular does not equal centrist is because the centrist has to come up with a view of the role of government that can justify and defend the centre ground.
The people who advocate the death penalty tend to have a set of views that puts them on the right, in order to achieve some sort of internal consistency.
And Corbyn et al haven't been elected because nationalising the railways or energy is difficult to do without putting forward a generally left wing manifesto.
The headache for Dauntsey's, a school that has done admirable work befitting it's charitable status, and was part of the Lavington Link offering 6th form places to State School pupils is the link between the it's governing body and Kids Company. Was the Chairman of the Governers, and Vice Chair of KC aware of any conflict of interest, and if so, did he excuse himself from any discussion concerning the award of any bursaries?
Maybe this hegemony is starting to unravel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Same_Sex_Couples)_Act_2013
Apart from the UK and New Zealand and maybe Ireland it has been centre left governments which have introduced gay marriage. The socialists in Spain and France, the Social Democrats in Sweden, the Liberals in Canada, Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court, the ANC in South Africa and so on
It is going to be an interesting election, but I think that Corbyn will need an able team around him to implement what he has in mind. There may well be many outside parliament to staff the back office, but the shadow cabinet may be a problem. The fact that all Deputy candidates are willing to serve is a positive sign. It is possible that Cooper and/or Cooper, and even Liz Kendall may come around. Labour politicians like public solidarity, whatever their private views.
Has Corbyn given any indication of how he would pay for his 'generally left wing manifesto'?
If there were to be a referendum, then the arguments would be rehearsed, and perhaps, just perhaps, the successes of privatisation will be heard, and the memories of BR reheated.
I could be persuaded in favour of renationalisation - or of another model, such as concessions instead of franchises. Unfortunately it seems that the pro-renationalisation people don't really have any idea of what it means - which is why they so often forget railfreight, ROSCOs, Open Access and 101 other things that complicate such a move.
Basically, the majority are clueless. They ought to read more of Christian Wolmar's output - whilst I don't always agree with him, he at least speaks from a knowledgeable position.
Incidentally, he worked in Milan for many years and is remembered fondly by the locals.
The final sub-clause about "the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry" is uncontroversial; even a Thatcherite would agree with the principle that the public should sensibly control industry through legislation. The problem arises with the naive Webb Marxist omission of a role, let alone protections, for private capital in the first part.
Essentially they ditched Clause Four every time they went into government after co-opting the Liberals' superior solution of the welfare state, so it would be dishonest to return it as is; fortunately for Britain I doubt that is really the agenda. Corbyn seems to realise that they only popular and potentially-successful nationalisation would be rail - and even that would require derogations from the European Commission. The political problem comes when you hand over wads of cash to foreign capitalists. He is correct that they should have SOME principles instead of a Milibandian ragbag of pledges, which is fine when you are as popular as Tony Blair but unappealing when you are not.
" ... he [Corbyn] does have plans to fund his spending by taxation rather than borrowing ..."
To be sure, but he is either deluded or disingenuous when he suggests that those taxes can be raised without the average Joe paying more. I am sure I cannot be the only person on here who can remember when the basic rate of income tax was 33%. To fund Corbyn's dreams of high welfare, nationalisation and public investment we would, I fear, be looking at that sort of level again.
Another 48 new recruits based in Newcastle are also checking new members. Meanwhile John Mann is trying to run a rival leadership election postal primary in his constituency just involving known Labour supporters! This is bizarre. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4521080.ece
I think the Tories cocked the privatisation up, but that's an entirely different matter and ancient history.
And by 1995, Clause IV had gone wishy-washy.
Making a profit is in and of itself evil. Railway companies make their profits because of subsidies paid to them by the taxpayer. They are, therefore, even more evil. Not only that if we were not paying subsidies to rich people, whose greatest pleasure is grinding the faces of the poor, then that money could be used to lower fares and improve the service provided by additional investment.
I may have missed some of the nuances of the argument for nationalisation but I think I have captured the essence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190559/
It's a national disgrace. Won't somebody think of the kittens?
It's actually going to happen isn't it? The mad lefty bloke who they let stand as a sop to the fringe of the party, who didn't even want to win is going to end up as leader. The other candidates were even lending him nominations to get him on the ballot!
I suppose this finally answers the question of what Labour are for. Taking completely unpopular and unworkable policies so they can safely snipe at the Tories from the comfort of opposition.
I look forward to plans of BA, BT and the energy companies being nationalised too. Back to the 70s we go.
If Corbyn is going to start renationalising then (eg) he will need to buy out BT, so that's ~£40billion for that.
Why would he waste money on that?
Unless he intends to appropriate it?
Cannot believe he is being considered seriously.
"East Coast was a subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways, formed by the Department for Transport as an operator of last resort when National Express was refused further financial support to its National Express East Coast (NXEC) subsidiary and consequently lost its franchise.[3] The franchise was re-nationalised on 14 November 2009, with the intention being that operations would return to a private franchisee by December 2013.[4] In March 2013 the Secretary of State for Transport announced that this would occur in February 2015 instead.[5]"
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year.png
The most stunning illustration of the dead hand of the state.
If they can do it better than the best run ones then I'll be impressed. Of course they couldn't which is what led to privitisation in the first place and a doubling of passenger numbers since.
Labour will muddle through once the Unions see what 'getting what they want' means at the ballot box.
And if the Scots wouldn't vote for Independence with oil at $102 they sure as heck aren't going to vote for it at $48 - because Nicola won't ask the question......
Having said that, there are serious disadvantages to having a monolithic single exam board. I think it's healthy for schools to have a choice of syllabus, particularly at A-level. The killer disadvantage to having everyone sit exactly the same exam is that it leaves you very exposed to those examiners getting the content "right", in terms of the needs of universities and employers (and also the needs of the kids: a mindnumbingly boring syllabus design may dissuade students from taking that subject). There are subjective judgement calls that there is no single right answer to. There is value (e.g. system resilience) to diversity and maintaining an "organic" nature to education.
In history, for example, which topics and periods should be studied? If there was just one board and all students studied the same list of topics, then everything else would be neglected. Similarly in literature, there is no need for every student in the country to be thoroughly acquainted with exactly the same set texts. In mathematics, should you teach with a theoretical focus (e.g. the OCR exam board's main syllabus) or with a more practical focus (e.g. the alternative "Mathematics for Education and Industry" syllabus that OCR runs)? One might be more suited to a grammar school or academic sixth form, the other might be more suitable where A-level maths is being taught as a subsidiary subject to a BTEC in Engineering, for instance.
The use of charitable funds for a dependent of an employee of the charity is bad enough (i.e. KC paying for the son). The fact that it is then reciprocated with a bursary (presumably discretionary) being granted to the the daughter of a employee of an organisation where the chairman of school governors is on the board just stinks.
I would hope that all these conflicts were properly declared and reported appropriately to the tax authorities. I have my doubts, though.
Of course you feel sorry for the girl in question - and maybe the Mail shouldn't have used any photo - but there is no way that you can break a story like this without identifying the girl (even if you don't name her specifically).
And a story like this should be told as widely as possible.
Well - yes. But let's be careful about cause and effect. Petrol rationing had a significant effect on passenger numbers, and congestion has had the same effect in the 1990s, although privatised services are more frequent than under the nationalised railway.
The key reason that nationalisation went ahead in 1948 though, even ahead of ideology, was that two of the major railway companies (which should never have been created in 1922 in the first place) were themselves facing collapse, due to a lack of capital and an urgent need for huge investment. They were described, even by their supporters, as hopelessly unwieldy and difficult to manage even before the war. (This was a legacy of grouping, which amalgamated railway companies rather than creating logical railway zones or regions - this meant the LMS operated to Swansea, deep inside GWR territory, and the London and North Eastern Railway controlled access to the west coast of Scotland).
The GWR and the Southern were in a better position, but still not a good one (the Southern, very selflessly, spent a huge amount on modernisation from 1945-7 despite the fact that its shareholders were not going to get much compensation for their shares). It should also be noted that no railway stock had paid an actual dividend since 1913 except - ironically - when they were controlled by the government, who leased the assets on the basis of paying all expenses. In a time of severely straitened finances, it is hard to see who would have bought shares in the railways, which would have left them unviable. The massive growth of private motoring and in particular private bulk road freight haulage was also cutting into the crucial freight aspect of the business (passenger services have never really paid their way) as was the fall in coal exports as other countries expanded their domestic coal mining at lower rates (particularly the Communist and African countries).
Even so ardent an opponent of nationalisation as Michael Bonavia, looking back, agreed that it was probably inevitable that the railways would have been nationalised by about the mid-1950s for these reasons anyway. The question of whether they were well run afterwards is entirely different, and the clear (indeed pretty much indisputable) evidence is that they were not - even Christian Wolmar concedes that. The civil servants in overall charge simply had no idea of what they were doing, no idea of how to manage money, and did not use trains and therefore saw their job as to run down the railways and replace them with roads (if you think that prior to 1958 we had not one motorway in this country, you will see how hard they pushed that idea).
That, to my mind, is the best possible argument against renationalisation - it was immensely damaging to the railways over a long period of time.
See muslims are victims, and colourful and vibrant, they just need a bit of help to cope in a society that is so racist and oppressive to them. White working class however are valueless chavs who knock each other up, take lots of drugs while claiming on the dole. The best thing to happen for them is that their daughters hang around with the colourful and more culturally diverse muslim taxi drivers.
Diversity means their kids not being given a leg up, while some other people round the corner are.
It's 5* wishful thinking.
Fortunately, as I have the choice, I have opted for a different exam board.
Thanks for that, very interesting.
Why were the major rail companies grouped in the first place? Just a general decline in rail profits at the time?
Forgive my language, but why the F did Batmanghelidjh, as head of a charity, have a chauffeur?
A leftwing stance was a necessary, not sufficient, condition for the SNP success. It was driven by the enthusiasm they generated in the referendum campaign and the ability to establish a view that they choice was SNP or "one of the others": i.e. that the other three parties were basically interchangeable.
A Corbyn set of policies won't be sufficient to over-turn the SNP support, although it may mean that voters will at least listen to Labour again in Scotland.
PS - this was designed to be a half-way house to avoid nationalisation, which was an option seriously considered by the ruling Unionists (Conservatives) under the guidance of Churchill and Bonar Law, for the aforementioned strategic reasons.
the reason why we have seen a proliferation of overweight people on scooters. Too Fat To F*cking Walk.
Mr. Notme, it always baffles me to see such fat people. It must take horrendous effort to gain so much weight.
Edited extra bit: someone [forget who] asked for a picture of the newly acquired hound.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33840410
Thanks again. So the forced mergers were done by the government?
Sounds like they made even more of a balls up with that and nationalisation than the privitisation years later.
It's hardly a ringing endorsement of government meddling in the railways.
She would have to eat 3,000 to 5,000 calories a day to just sustain herself at that weight.