Jump to content

Brexit View

Loz

By Loz
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

WomblingFree

WomblingFree

Posted
Posted

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And I'm not giving the Labour leadership a get-out

> either. How come we have such incompetent

> individuals at the top of politics these days?


The Economist published an interesting article on this the other week (link below but you might need to register). Summary: neither Labour or the Conservatives have their best people on the front bench - Labour's excludes anti-Corbyn MPs, the Conservatives' excludes those who are pro-EU.


https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723101-country-will-soon-go-bat-against-brussels-one-its-weakest-teams-decades


I would add: too many career politicians. I can't think of many of the current crop who've achieved much outside parliament.

Jenny1

Jenny1

Posted
Posted
Thank you for the link WomblingFree. I was able to access the article. And it draws sensible conclusions I think - the need to widen the talent pool, and value age and experience more highly when selecting MPs. Longer term that would help. But for now we have to resign ourselves to being lumbered with the 'C Team'.
JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I watched David Davis' performance before the

> Parliamentary select committee and found him

> unprepared.


Turned up today to the negotiations with no notes whilst EU team have thick

folders full of notes.


He had a huge grin on his face though.

Seabag

Seabag

Posted
Posted

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > I watched David Davis' performance before the

> > Parliamentary select committee and found him

> > unprepared.

>

> Turned up today to the negotiations with no notes

> whilst EU team have thick

> folders full of notes.

>

> He had a huge grin on his face though.



Davis even when not grinning has that grinny type of face. That I want to punch that face is no matter.


We the 'UK' look like a bunch of chancers thus far.

pato

pato

Posted
Posted

More than running she is going to walk for her 3 weeks holidays in Italy..

Some ppl cannot afford holidays this year thanx to her and her inabilities..but than good on her! She better take advantage now

Hopefully last time she can put her feet in Europe..but surely not. She ll be free to move while we (English and EU) gonna be stuck where we are.

Best of all we are also paying somehow for her holidays..

She probably needs somewhere to stay where ppl are not waiting outside for her but than not sure Italy or everywhere else it s good for her.

On the moon maybe...??

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

pato Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Best of all we are also paying somehow for her

> holidays..


For sure, given that a significant security detail and secure communications unit, plus various secretaries and aides, will have to accompany her at our expense. A staycation would have been rather less selfish and more economical for the taxpayer - particularly as she won't be in post more than another year or so, plenty of time for holidays at her own expense after that.

red devil

red devil

Posted
Posted

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe the 'transition' model will become the norm

> for all the EU, effectively becoming a

> modification of the EU as we know it.



Agreed, the EU needs to reform but that will take time, something which a transition period would provide...

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thatcher was clever.. ?? Mmmh no deceitful.

>

> She gave 'Council' Tenants the opportunity to buy

> there own homes..

>

> .. insuring that they could not then afford to go

> on strike..

>

> ...at a time when the

> Shipbuilding industry was finished.. The Mining

> Industry was finished.. The Steel Industry was

> finished.

> The mines closed.. The shipyards closed.. The

> Steelworks closed .. People had no jobs and they

> lost their homes.

>

> They were snapped up at auction by unscrupulous

> landlords. Hence the affordable housing shortage.

>

>

> DulwichFox


As it happens- and I have pointed this out before somewhere on the Forum, the Right To Buy was first proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto of 1959 but Labour lost that election. The policy was then rolled out by Mrs T and is now extended to housing association tenants.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59.htm


see the final line under the Housing paragraph

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


>

> As it happens- and I have pointed this out before

> somewhere on the Forum, the Right To Buy was first

> proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto of 1959 but

> Labour lost that election. The policy was then

> rolled out by Mrs T and is now extended to housing

> association tenants.

> http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59

> .htm

>

> see the final line under the Housing paragraph


Wrong. You need to read the final four lines (how unlike you to cherrypick):


"Labour's plan is that, with reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses which were rent-controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted. They will repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents. This is a big job which will take time and its speed will vary according to local conditions.


Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants."


So what Labour was proposing was that they would take over all privately-owned rent controlled properties from their landlords; they would then offer the sitting tenant the chance to buy the property, if that was declined it would be turned into a council property. Nothing to do with offering a right-to-buy regarding existing council homes.

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

I respectfully suggest you're mistaken, Loz: the "however" in the final line clearly links it to the preceding line, as does the "first": we will buy the rent-controlled houses and turn them into council houses, but first the tenant will be offered the chance to buy. It's offering tenants of rent-controlled properties the right to buy, not all council tenants.


ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties.

keano77

keano77

Posted
Posted

Rendel quoted


ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties


Contradiction here


It's clear Labour in 1959 was hoping to change 'rent controlled' properties to 'rent restricted' properties. Legally (historically) a big difference here


However, off topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...