Blah Blah

If you look at the corresponding fugiures for turnout for those years Loz you will also see a high point of turnout in 1950 that drops steadily and plummets in 2015. So all that's really happened is a drop in people voting (except for a spike at the high point of Blair). As we all know, it's younger generations that increasingly are not voting and it was only a matter of time before that made for a significant drop - especially given the way that neo-liberal economics has basically trashed their futures. That's what's going on. And instead of the main parties fighting for that vote, you have them working to hang onto the grey vote instead, whilst changing absolutely nothing to help young people, who are facing increased burdens of debt just to get a higher education or housing etc. Check out the first graph here for what I am pointing out on turnout. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > And I disagree on people's voting patterns. > History does not support that view. > > Of course people's voting patterns change - that's > why we have a government change every few > elections. People will always tire of a government > and want change. Considering also that we're in > the middle of the biggest shift towards smaller > parties in post-industrial history and the Labour > party being virtually wiped out in Scotland by a > newly-rampant SNP. I'd say history does indeed > support that idea. I don't call bouncing between two parties a major shift in anything. Historically the electorate hasn't really shifted at all. A comparatively small number of swing voters have always decided elections, until that is, recently - and only then because of the major shift away from Labour in Scotland. That's my point. The party that holds the centre ground (whether they also stand on the right or left)usually wins.

This is correct. UKIP is the reason Cameron offered a referendum and given the narrowness of the majority, he was probably right to do it. But you then have to ask what else would they agree to, just to secure votes. That for me is everything that is wrong with government (pretty much all over the Western World). They've sold the idea of neoliberal consumerist individualism and now can only win elections if they give the people what they think they want, whether that want is actually good for the future of the country or not. I have also argued all along that too many people don't know enough about the EU to make any kind of informed decision either way. So we have a decision that could adversely affect our future economy (again in either direction) being based on single issues that appeal to some gutteral response from a place of ignorance, and the politicians are happy to appeal to that, again on both sides. Half the problem of course is that there will be no perfection whether we stay or leave. Both outcomes have serious pros and cons - hence my earlier point that yes or no ignores the complexity of the issue. Why aren't we being asked if we can just be part of the common market like Norway and Switzerland for example?

Completely agree Michael.

I'd rather have a SNP Labour coalition than a Tory party that are making us all poorer and bashing the disabled at will. And I disagree on people's voting patterns. History does not support that view. The FPTP system would ensure the Tories stay in power for a very long time.

Animals do get cuts and punctures from snagging on fences or other things they navigate or climb. If an animal has been attacked, it's usually pretty obvious in my experience.

Dumping Scotland means we face a future of perpetual Tory rule. I think that should frighten people more than being in or out of the EU.

But there lies the problem Louisa. The type of people that govern us will not change if we leave. And Piri Patel gave a speech last week to business leaders in which she said brexit would allow them to do away with some employment protections to free up business. So the argument for Brexit by those who will govern through it is completely about pushing more power into the hands of business and away from ordinary people. And if you go out of the South-east, you don't see pressures on supply of housing etc, but you do see high unemployment. We often look at the south-east and think it's a mirror for the entire UK. It's not. That's worth remembering too.

I think there's always a grey area on migration figures of all types. It's hard to acurately track movement, because it always moves. People go where there are jobs, and that includes internally too. We should never demonise people for that, but we do need to understand trends and have a sensible strategy for management. Personally, I get frustrated at people who want brexit just to stop EU migration, because I don't think they have a full understanding of the benefits for commerce of that. Shengen came about because before that, lorries would have to queue for hours and sometimes days at EVERY border to transport goods. And businesses who were struggling to recruit internally couldn't get the skills and labour they needed to grow. When Germany told Syrian refugees to come to Germany, they did so because there are parts of Germany with full employment and local businesses is struggling to expand in those areas. I think that the real problem is not about the EU, or Shengen etc. It's the move to the free market economy. When you privatise everything, you hand responsibility to an entitiy that doesn't care about infrastructure, health, housing etc. When people move, they don't just become parasites to the exisiting economy. They work, generate demand and create side economic demand. It all feeds each other. Where government has let us all down is in devolving itself of infrastructure investment and strategic planning. That's why we have pressures on housing, schools, hopsitals, resources etc. And if we stopped immigration tm, that poor management wouldn't change.

Until you get that info you have now way of knowing what it says, so perhaps best to not insult Renata, who from what I can see is working very hard to help residents where she can. Councillors are NOT council employees. Their paymasters are us, through our taxes (both local and national). It's also very clear that liability is elsewhere, which is why Wandle are pursuing legal avenues to bring to account those who are actually liable. Personally I'd like to hear more about that, but accept Renta's reasons for legal confidentiality.

It almost feels to me that a straight in or out question is a problem too. I think a lot of people are for in but only on trade and economic grounds, in other words, the original common market that the UK joined. As for what Brexiters want, it depends on whether we are talking about MPs or the public. I think the agenda for both is different. The likes of Gove, Patel and Johnson want no barriers to how employers can treat Labour for example. But I don't think that's what the public supporters want at all. As for trade agreements. Britain only has a market of 65 million. We are never going to get a free trade deal with countries like the USA, China etc with markets five times or more bigger than ourselves. This is why trade agreements are so difficult to negotiate. The EU as a trading bloc has far more power in negotiating trade agreements with those countries than we would ever have negotiating on our own outside of it.

Cameron has denied it, as has every person on the remain side in cabinet. The figures are in the public domain anyway. You can easily look up what the rebate is and what is given in grants and to where. Or would you rather believe biased soundbites on face value? I don't think you are that gullable Fox. There is no economic logic to leaving on any level. ?110m is a tiny fraction of the money the EU gives out and yes, individual grants can be questioned. But in the main, the grants given out are to areas needing redevelopment and regeneration. Cornwall, Northern Ireland, and other areas of the UK have benefitted from EU grants for just that. The EU has also just granted an 80 bn fund for social home building in the UK too, money that LAs could apply for at a time when our own government is strangling LAs ability to build much needed homes. It's easy to focus on a bit of bullfighting (something I hate as much as you) but that doesn't wipe out everything else. The fact is that most of the money from membership goes where it is genuinely needed, and often because sitting governments aren't interested in helping deprived areas. Again you can easily look all if this information up.

Boris has sounded desperate too Fox. There is no such thing as free trade. Every country will try and tip a trade a greement in their own favour. That's why they take so long to negotiate. And WTO trade tariffs will still apply. Take a deeper look into the mechanisms of trade agreements and you'll see what I mean. We also do not pay 350 million a week - that is a deliberate lie by the leave campaign that does not take into account the rebate we get and the money that comes back to our poorer areas in grants. The actual cost to us above those things is under half that. The 350 million lie has been debunked by so many financial bodies that I don't know why you still believe that. We also for that money get access to a market of 500 million poeple which accounts for 44% of our exports (or ?200 billion to the businesses that export annully). That alone blows the cost of membership out of the water. There are just no logical economic grounds for leaving the EU, none whatsoever. This is why many voting to remain (like myself) are doing so, with the caveat that other things, like bureaucracy etc need to change.

A strong remain vote wouldn't suprise me and if that happens, should see the end of the matter. UKIP will still no doubt campaign for it, but never again would a Tory party feel the need to offer a referendum for fear of losing votes to them. If you want to know what your MEP does, you simply have to subscribe to receive their monthly newsletters. MEPs are the people who propose and vote on ammendments to proposed legislation, and so operate a bit like the House of Lords. To say they do nothing is just not true. UKIP MEPs are notorious for poor attendance. So a start would be in the public following their MEPs and learning what they are supposed to be doing and making sure they actually do it. As for the poor uncleglen, the poor of which countries would that be? The problem with that comment is that every country in the world has various percentages of poor. So you are in effect arguing for people staying put and unemployed. Everything in our culture requires people to find work if they can, and for many people, mobility is part of that search. Similarly, businesses rely on people being able to move to take their jobs. Areas like Newcastle etc, aren't high in unemployment because they are full of EU immigrants taking all the jobs. The are high in unemployemnt because there are genuinely no jobs. Those who can move to find work do (and they usually come to the South East).

The reality is that anywhere in a large city will subject us to pollution. Pretty much every huge city in the world has similar problems, and many worse than ours, far worse. What annoys me most about cars, is that most of the time there is only one person in them (i.e the driver). It has to be one of the most innefficient forms of transport. The technology is there to give us something cleaner and better. There just has to be the will to do it.

The original construction company might be out of the frame in terms of compensation, but they are not out of the frame in terms of usderstanding exactly WHO is responsible for the poor construction. Did either of the construction companies build anything else at the time, and are those building in danger too? These are questions at the heart of the matter. After all, concrete that is poured, looks like poured concrete. Only a scientifc test could really tell you if the poured concrete is to the required standard. My point there being that once something is constructed, it is possible for it to look ok enough to pass inspection, especially if dishonest paperwork or records accompany it. I don't know enough about the process of checks and standards to be specific, but this is what needs to be looked at - the safeguards that should have made sure this didn't happen having failed.

Dunno bob, but both my wife and I have had a long day, the kids are with grandparents, and we are in the mood to go out, and a flamin mangal sounds about right (esp as we are veggies and the OP pointed out their veggie/ vegan range). We will find them :)

Ok it's the behaviour of a flasher and while that's something people like to mock, it has a mental health problem underlying it. What I would say Cella, is that the impact on YOU is the measure of the offence. People who expose themselves, get gratification from the shock they cause/ the attention they attract. That is why some people choose to laugh at and ridicule flashers. But ultimately what you are dealing with is a fetish. It's not a nice fetish, because it involves unwilling participants, but most flashers are just that, people with a cognitive wiring that seeks gratification from exposure. My advice would be to report it to Police (with a description of the male), not because it is a criminal offence (which it is), but because there is someone out there that may need psychiatric help, for their own safety as much as anyone else.

Was any egg fried rice thrown?

Hats off to the OP. That's exactly the kind of post that makes me want to give them a try.

Well done from me too. I thought their skills were amazing.

Harriet Harman has also tabled meetings with Wandle in parliament on this, so there is no doubt that Southwark Labour are treating this with the seriousness it deserves. Southwark do not own the land, they did not build the properties in question either, and they also hold no liability really. The construction company (companies) involved are the only party to this that no-one is dicussing here and yet they are central to what has happened. If the process was such that Wandle couldn't, or didn't pick up on the problems, that needs to be looked at. If the guidelines and rules around building control/ inspection from Southwark's end weren't adaquate to pick up on problems, that can be looked at too. There's an automatic drive it seems to lay blame at Southwark, or Wandle etc. But until the facts are fully established and understood (as they must be through some kind of inquiry), seeking blame where there may be none is unfair. What matters in the immediate term, is that residents are given satisfactory alternate accomodation at no extra expense to themselves (whilst the rebuild takes place) and that fair compensation is given for the disruption. This should be done with no objection or fuss from Wandle.

Interesting approach. I take back most of what I posted then, as I was clearly being suspicious of nothing :)