Loz

Because the Grun has always been such ardent monarchists...?

Villager Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > BFS? > > WIFS is BFS? British Foam Stores. :))

From the Beeb: Wasn't this the same PM who said 'no deal was better than a bad deal'? Sounds like she is now saying 'no deal' is a bad deal.

There's always the Monster Raving Loony Party, jaywalker. Though it's a little hard these days to distinguish them from the rest.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Lordship 516 Wrote: > > > Wolfie Smith would have been proud of that last post. > > I'll ignore that remark - I'm happy to indulge your whimsy. Yes, sorry for that. It was unfair. > > > Vote for Corbyn & give him a chance because we have no chance with May & her maniacs. > > > > Hmm. Vote for May and her swinging cuts that mess up things today or vote for Corbyn and his > > free-spending madness that will mess things up tomorrow. And get the stupidity that is Brexit > > whichever way? > > You overplay the 'free-spending' pejoritave. Much of what McDonnell advocates would sit well with > prudent governance but the popular media & their city fathers don't like the overall message > whereby they will be required to pay their fair share so of course he is being demonized. I don't think I do. Much of Labour's 10 pledges require a lot of money. I'll wait and see when they release figures with the full manifesto but I really can't see how they are going to make it all add up. Even the Beeb has noticed that Corbyn has spent the money he's proposing to raise from increasing corporation tax five times. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39720085 > > Vote for May, who can flip her opinion at will, or Corbyn, who can't even govern his own party and > > would be out of his depth in a puddle? > > For a person who is not in control of his own party he has done admirably well - he was faced > with a huge rebellion of mainly Blairists & ambitious MPs who he has managed to bring into > line & keep them there. That's damning with faint praise. He's lead Labour to stupendously low support and approval rates and he's been a thoroughly useless leader of the opposition. He's failed to oppose the Tories pretty much at all. They've given him so many open goals to go for, but Corbyn has preferred to read out emails 'from Martha of East Grinstead who is having trouble paying her gas bill'. He's been thoroughly ineffectual. And, like May, he was thoroughly deceptive about his 'support' for remaining in the EU. > > See, I don't want a radical government of any flavour. I want someone with some common sense to > > lead us away from the mess we are in and protect us from the mess we are heading towards. > > I think Corbyn & co will be quite common sensical - they will be faced with stark realities with the > public debt at the highest level ever - as a gift from the recently retired Rt Honourable George > Osborne & his looney economics. Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree as to Corbyn and McDonnell's common sense. And that's not even mentioning the reality-free zone that is Diane Abbott. And you can't really have a potshot at Osborne's deficit, as bad as it was, when you know full well that Corbyn and McDonnell will balloon it much further. > > Corbyn is not the solution. Sure the UK patient is sick, but the last thing it needs is > > 'radical' open-heart surgery performed by a naturopath. > > Unfortunately we do need some radical treatement of our economy - not to the level of open heart > surgery but a recwersal of kow-towing to the globalists, taking back control of not only our > borders but of all the activities including economic & financial activities that happen within > those borders. May will not give us that - she along with Hammond, the Clown & others will march > us relentlessly onwards into the mouth of more & more privatization & globalization where they take > the profit & we take the losses. It's funny you should complain about pejoratives above and then write that paragraph. I suspect if the economy was running fine, you'd still be hard pressed to say something nice about the Tories. And if the Tories were in the utter mess that Labour is now in, you wouldn't be so forgiving. See that's where you and I differ. I fear and like both the Tories and Labour in fairly equal measures. I can happily (and unhappily) live under either. But Corbyn is further left than May is right and so, as a centrist, I actually think he is more dangerous. And that is Labour's big problem, because I am exactly the sort of person they need to convince them to vote for Labour again if they want to govern (and whether they actually do is questionable in itself). I'm a centrist who used to vote for Labour, but now won't. Going all radical lefty might please the Momentum crowd, but it won't win them elections. And they just don't seem to understand that. > > So, no thanks. I'll vote for the Lib Dems. And before you say the Lib Dems cannot win government > > on their own, well neither can Labour at the moment. > I agree with that as a strategy - a coalition of Labour/Lib Dem might offer us the best of all > solutions; prevent Attila May grabbing absolute power & emasculate Johnson & his Tory Boys for > the foreseeable future - we might have a chance for a reasonable result for a fairer society. I'm hard pressed to decide which I'd prefer the Lib Dems to govern with; I just want them there as a controlling influence. As someone once said, the Lib Dems give the Tories a heart and Labour a brain.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Wolfie Smith would have been proud of that last post. > Vote for Corbyn & give him a chance because we have no chance with May & her maniacs. Hmm. Vote for May and her swinging cuts that mess up things today or vote for Corbyn and his free-spending madness that will mess things up tomorrow. And get the stupidity that is Brexit whichever way? Vote for May, who can flip her opinion at will, or Corbyn, who can't even govern his own party and would be out of his depth in a puddle? See, I don't want a radical government of any flavour. I want someone with some common sense to lead us away from the mess we are in and protect us from the mess we are heading towards. Corbyn is not the solution. Sure the UK patient is sick, but the last thing it needs is 'radical' open-heart surgery performed by a naturopath. So, no thanks. I'll vote for the Lib Dems. And before you say the Lib Dems cannot win government on their own, well neither can Labour at the moment.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > John Mc Donnell?s proposition would enable a state investment bank issue bonds directly to the Bank > of England & use the QE moneys for the purposes of rebuilding infrastructure generally for the good > of all the nation - indirectly a People?s QE; not so-called ?helicopter money? going directly into > the pockets of all the population but available to enhance benefit for all society through > better/more hospitals, schools, care facilities & so on. That sound good, but how does he propose to make the QE books balance? QE isn't just the magic creation of money - like any fractional-reserve created money it has to balance, so creating money will also create a debt that must be repaid (and the created money thus destroyed). In the last QE this was done by mostly buying back government bonds with a bit of buying corporate bonds. What McDonnell is proposing sounds like just printing money. I believe the last government to try that was the Weimar Republic and that really didn't end well. Lets face it, if just creating QE-style money was the solution for new hospitals, schools, etc, all governments would do it.

Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I believe Corbyn has it within him to rise to the job - he has shown himself quite > capable in handling the internal crises so far Yes, he's really turned Labour into a smooth-running machine.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thosse of us who are at the center (more or less where Blair was politically without the wars) have > no real representation (maybe I still do the 80s LibDem thing of seeing them as 'god squad' (to > happy to please)), > > We need a Macron My hope of of the Brexit debacle and Corbyn was that the centrist Labour people and the LibDems (and maybe even a few centrist Tories) would come together and form a centrist party. Sadly, that seems but a wild dream.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's all about your ABCs - anyone but conservatives I think most of the country have a different ABC - anyone but Corbyn.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other > posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the > 'free speech' of holocaust deniers. > > I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it > does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to > disagree with it. So, if you understand that (and frankly, I'm really not convinced), why can't you see that treating everyone - no matter what their race or gender or political belief - equally, fairly and evenly is a good thing? Can't you see that? Why is that such an alien concept to you? Again, that paragraph was not to reflect my beliefs - I think most people on this forum who have been around longer than you know that. It was for you to ask questions of yourself to see how you adjust your opinion based on factors such as people's race/gender/etc. But I suspect I am wasting my time here. I think you are now going out of your way to be intentionally offensive. Which, ironically, makes you rather similar to intent to Livingston. And yes, robben, I do believe you have the right to do just that because, as Chomsky wisely noted, free speech should be extended to everyone, even the nasty, unpleasant twerps.

I'm a staunch remainer, so the Lib Dems are the only sensible option.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > robbin Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for > > > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to > > > suggest. > > > > That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I > > took a view that he was entitled to free speech - > > not that I in any way agreed with anything he > > said. Because that's how free speech works. > > You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at > least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law). > > But you then went further and posed this question... > > "But as you asked before, robbin, had he said similar remarks about other groups, what would > have been the reaction? You asked about black people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex > white van drivers? I suspect there would be wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on > the group in question. What makes some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not? " > > I may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech > and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point > of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out > the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for > 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way > comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have > been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing > indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you. Wow - so you were referring to me as 'readily being an apologist' in your post last night. You really are a nasty, unpleasant piece of work, aren't you robbin? And, I must say, not too bright, either (though that was suspected after your less-than-intelligent reply after I posted the photoshop mock-up of the Brexit bus a little while ago). That piece you've quoted was to try to make you see that YOU are very selective in those you would get upset about and/or grant free speech to. But you missed it. Sigh. So I'll post this again, just for your benefit (though I suspect I am completely wasting my time)... ?If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.? - Noam Chomsky

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jenny1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > rendelharris Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > As Frederic Raphael (I think) once said, England > > > is the only country where being called clever (as > > > in "too clever by half") is an insult. > > > > I wonder where this prejudice comes from? I bet > > it's a relatively 'modern' thing - nineteenth > > century maybe? Does it go with the birth of > > schools for the elite that focused on creating > > 'empire builders' on the sports field rather than > > scientists ? > > I think it's a lot to do with the class system - > in a society where high political and military > position was more predicated on one's birth than > one's abilities the clever person was seen as a > pushy upstart trying to usurp the natural order. One day we're going to find something 'bad' that nobody anywhere will try to blame on the class system.

robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are > some people who would readily be apologists for > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they > are in a small minority, I would venture to > suggest. That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I took a view that he was entitled to free speech - not that I in any way agreed with anything he said. Because that's how free speech works.

Interesting. The law on box junctions say you can only have box junction as follows: I would suggest that anyone who gets a ticket in this could argue that whilst the bollards are in place, it is not actually a junction and therefore the yellow box is invalid. Could be an interesting defence.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London: Work time pay rate ?9.65 (based on ?9.05 > an hour for an 8 hour shift which includes a 30 > minute paid break) plus ?1 commission for every > Membership sold or renewed and ?2 for every Member > Plus Membership. If this is true, I can't see why DPH doesn't rejig its pay to be ?9.65 an hour and not pay the break. Add on 10p an hour (a 1% pay rise) and they will be paying LLW and knock the headline complaint on the head.

Well, the idea of four more bank holidays is no bad thing. But three of the proposed dates fall in March/April - the time of the year where we don't need any more. Corbyn finally comes up with a good idea, then cocks it up. Sigh.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't get me wrong, I'm not too bothered about the gender, I just have a feeling it's time for > a female Labour leader. Well, the 2-0 jibe did rather irritate Labour... > I can't actually think of many better Tory MPs either. Not just saying that to have a dig, my > point is that the current crop of MPs across the board are pretty poor. I did have a sentence along those lines in the post, but I deleted it just before posting as it seemed a bit 'stuck on'. But yes, as the previous Tory leadership race showed, the barrel is looking a bit empty there as well. They do have Ruth Davidson, who is terrific, but I doubt she can be enticed to Westminster. > I guess there's always Hilary Benn, he strikes me as his own man, not his father's natural heir. He's a possible, but seems to have missed his moment.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I just hope Corbyn will fnck the fnck off on 9th June (have a nasty feeling he won't), and that > Labour put a woman at the helm (Heidi Alexander maybe...). Diane Abbott, more likely... Personally, I don't care if they are male or female, I just want someone who can do the job properly. Of the runners and riders at Oddschecker, there are a few possibilities (Cooper, Umunna, Alexander, Khan, maybe Clive Lewis), a couple of never-gonna-happens (David Miliband, Balls, Harman), a few haven't-heard-much-about-thems (Rebecca Long Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Dan Jarvis) and the rest are generally morons (Thornberry, Starmer, Abbott, McDonnell, Angela Eagle, Owen Smith). It's all rather depressing. Of the decent ones, Cooper is pretty good, Umunna might be a little too centrist for Labour, Alexander is OK and Khan, the best bet, probably isn't in the running. But you just know that, with the current Labour membership, its going to be McDonnell or Abbott, isn't it?

Considering Oxford St is such a densely pedestrianised area, I really cannot see any logic in allowing cyclists into the area.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > steveo Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This one will have you rolling in your aisle Quids > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304 > > > Yes I've seen it, laughable - is she in the Shadow Cabinet? - I even saw a terrible tweet from Clive > Lewis this morning, who people talk about as a saviour of the party. I've voted Labour 4 times in > elections - i can't see me ever going back. They are useless and hopeless. Not saying the Tories > and SDP are great but they are miles ahead of the shambles that is Labour nowadays. Although it was funny (in a toe curling way), I felt a bit sorry for her. She'd obviously been briefed to say, "They've rigged democracy by calling an election". How do you try and that explain logically? It's such a ridiculous concept. But, she better get used to it. She's going to spend a lot of time in the next 47 days trying to explain the ridiculous.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > so since some > > cyclists are totally selfish and irresponsible > > because they think they have an entitlement, or > a > > monopoly on saving the planet, then they should > be > > excluded from pedestrian zones > > I see some car drivers every day who think they > have an entitlement to exceed the speed limit, run > red lights, overtake the wrong side of traffic > islands etc etc. Therefore all cars should be > banned from the roads, OK with you? Makes as much > sense as your statement. To be fair, he didn't say 'all roads' but 'pedestrian zones'. Which does make sense. (Good grief - I am defending a UG post...)

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Spot on Quids, the Tories should be there for the taking. Many people won't vote Labour because they > think economically the UK would be worse off under Corbyn than Brexit. That's some achievement... If you don't want Brexit, vote Lib-Dems. If you want Brexit, vote Tory. If you vote Labour you get Corbyn AND Brexit. That's the economic equivalent of putting your dangly bits into a tree shredder.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > malumbu Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > I expect that there is greater homophobia in the Tory office (hardly > > > traditional values) and similarly their backers in the black and red top media. > > > > You might 'expect' that, but I believe that the Tories fielded more LGBT candidates than Labour in > > 2015 and had more gay MPs than Labour until 2015. So, like for female leaders, Labour wrings its > > hands and frets about identity politics but actually achieves little. > > > With reference to the last election, no they didn't: Labour had 35 LGBT candidates, as did the > LibDems, with the Tories fielding 28, Greens 25, others 10. It was also notable that the Tories > didn't run LGBT candidates in any of their safe seats or winnable marginals, unlike the other > parties. Labour now has 13 openly LGBT MPs and the Tories 12. So your last sentence is nonsense. Not at all. Here's the data I used. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/events/events-archive/Andrew_Reynolds_slides.pdf (slide 7) Which also clearly says "LGBT candidates not disproportionality in unwinnable seats." (slide 14) And - to correct myself - the Tories still have more LGBT MPs, but less as a proposition of total MPs. (slide 4) Either way, malumbu's proposition doesn't stack up.