Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.8K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 49 General Chatter
- 8 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 538 Fun & Games
- 166 BA Predictor Threads
- 49 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 351 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 140 Current West Ham
- 213 Men's First Team
- 4 Women's Team
- 13 PL2 & Academy
- 34 Management & Board
- 16 Stadium & Training Ground
- 32 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 459 Match Threads
- 129 MOTM
- 12 West Ham Nostalgia
- 37 Former Players and Staff
- 5 Past Games & Glories
- 43 Transfers
- 51 Transfer Speculation
- 88 Completed Transfers
- 57 Internationals
- 50 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 136 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 284 Other Teams & Matches
- 27 Other Players & Staff
Comments
And it was justified by the Chacellor as being in the interests of fairness and equality between the self-employed and employees. It would have raised money for the public purse, but (despite what ITV said) the govt didn't (as far as I can tell) claim that it would all go to the NHS.
The inequality issue was related also to pensions. Not just the NHS.
It was a joke.
TM wants a speedy resolution to the EU in UK and UK in EU migrants rights issue but Junker has indicated it could take longer than we want - it was always the case the EU was dragging their feet on this, not the UK so you can blame them for your worries and uncertainties in that area. Even if the UK had guaranteed the EU migrants rights the EU would still not have done the same as yet as you are one of their bargaining chips.
Because, well .... many of those argued for Remain SAID it wasn't gonna be easy, and the other side at the negotiating table would have more power, would hold all the cards, and would most likely be able to negotiate something that would be in their interests more than the UKs. But we were dismissed as doom-mongers. We were told they needed us as much as we needed them.
But so far it isn't quite turning out like that. They are driving a hard bargain (or are likely to.)
Well, Anyone who voted Leave has, imo, no grounds for complaining about how the EU is approaching these negotiations - they have got exactly what they wanted. Exit. Deal with it. ;cool
I have absolutely no truck with the line that 'Brexit was the right thing and would have been OK if it had all turned out like we in our imaginary world had thought it might. So it's not our fault for ignoring and dismissing the warnings. Oh no. That would be the nasty Germans, Poles, French etc.'
I mean. Really?
;smoking
The only actual info from a local source (local paper posted through the door) I can refer to is a poll they did of people who admitted they did not vote, the main reason given (for both sides, but not the only reason) was they believed remain was going to win (which everybody and his dog was predicting). So those who would have voted remain did not as they thought remain would win without their vote (so could not be bothered) but in the same vein those who would have voted to leave did not as they believe remain would win so there was no point (so equally could not be bothered). Other reasons were that people had not registered to vote, some intended to but circumstances on the day prevented it (illness, vehicle problems, traffic problems etc.) Interestingly, for those who responded to the poll, more than half (58 - 42%) would have voted leave. As this is a local free paper, I cannot provide you with a link as they don't have web pages, so if you choose not to believe me that is your choice.
On another note, we had some local elections today. The only party to provide any information in the run up about their candidates was the Tories, on going to vote I was sorely disappointed at the choice. I normally pick an independent as I find they do actually try to represent the people who vote for them and provide more feedback and don't vote along party lines. We had three choices; Lid Dems, Greens or Conservative - no Labour, no independents or any other party, so far from voter apathy this is evidence of party apathy, it seems like some parties have willingly given up trying to win votes because they do not do so well in some areas and are leaving it up to others.
So anyone who did not want to vote for any of the three parties in our area has been denied a vote by these sections of the political establishment, I think it is outrageous they are allowed to get away with this and effectively force people to vote for someone they don't want to vote for (forcing a protest vote). As it happened I did not vote as I don't want either the Greens or Lib Dem's anywhere near running my local council, but at the same time could not endorse the Conservatives running it with the plans they have, hence a preference for an independent.
The MOD is a Gov't department run by Civil Servants, not the Gov't. They have to be seen as apolitical as they have to work with all parties whoever is in power. They agree their equipment needs then go to the Gov't to get the funding. The fact the MOD has 'committed' itself does not at this time necessarily mean the Gov't has also, it may be a way of trying to force the Gov'ts hand to prevent further spending cuts.
But Adme this is no different from your earlier statement regarding Remainers who didn't vote because they thought Remain would win. Here you didn't vote because no one put themselves forward as an Independent, surely something you could have done yourself if you felt so strongly? Why would you vote for someone who has been forced onto the ballot?
When did I last have a Socialist candidate to vote for? ;weep
Yes they are required to be apolitical. As in, not play party politics.
They are, however, a government department.They are not autonomous, but work to the policy priorities of the government of the day.
For me it should have been a lesson for the politicians in playing politics with the national interest, but instead of learning that lesson May has gone for more game playing rather than less. The public have been mislead in believing we can retain benefits and regain control (cherry picking). Our arrogance really does need rewarding in my view.
If looking at the situation pragmatically there is a common sense approach which May is trying to make more difficult by the day through being entirely unprofessional, and Davies has now joined in by suggesting the UK is being bullied because we are not being deferred to and our weakness is being called out. However if we can build a healthy relationship at the start of these negotiations the first deal should be to work out how big our commitments are to the EU budgets which will be this big bill we hear about. If for example this stretches to 2022 we should then agree that we will remain in the EU until then and continue paying our obligations whilst using the time to facilitate an orderly withdrawal. We should be able to have thrashed out a trade deal during this time, prevented the EU budget being underfunded and for all involved the shock to the system will be less.
The sticking point is this almost arbitrary two year issue of article 50, so in my view the first thing is agree a more realistic term and have the 27 vote and agree on this and then get to work sensibly.
As for May she needs drop her belief that keeping the right wing press onside should be her top priority, she needs speak to us properly and the EU properly. It's not weak to speak to the nation about how complex the issue is and manage expectation reasonably, it's leadership.
But Adme this is no different from your earlier statement regarding Remainers who didn't vote because they thought Remain would win. Here you didn't vote because no one put themselves forward as an Independent, surely something you could have done yourself if you felt so strongly? Why would you vote for someone who has been forced onto the ballot?
IH - No its not - there was a choice they could have voted for if they had gone to vote, whereas I went to vote and there was no one for me to vote for. There was very little information around from any of the parties (apart form the Conservatives who did a leaflet drop), I only found out there were only the three when I got the ballot paper, otherwise I would have been asking questions long before the vote.
So who should I have voted for then Mrs G? I don't believe in protest voting, you should always vote for whoever represents your views closest - in this case it was none of the above. For me this is one of the current problems in politics that needs to be stopped, to have an agreement with another party to not field a candidate in the hope the other parties candidate gets enough to stop someone else being voted in is wrong and tantermount to vote rigging, particularly the big parties. I accept that smaller ones don't have the reasources and might only target seats they have a chance in, but the bigger ones (paticularly Labour/Lib Dems)?
What is progressive about not giving people a choice and trying to fix a vote?
Being a councillor is a lot of work, its not just turning up for council meetings once a week and holding "surgery" sessions once a month. I used to know a Liberal councillor in Redbridge back in the 80s (before they became Lib Dems), after he was elected I hardly saw him as when he wasn't working his day job he was busy with council business.
Criminal charges have been brought against the Tory MP for Thanet South, his election agent and a party organiser.
(The trial is scheduled for July, after the election. Goodness knows what the ramifications will be if he gets re-elected, and is subsequently found guilty.)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-40129826
From what I can see the polls are turning in favour of Labour as I always thought they would. The Labour parties campaign is on the march and the mood in the camp is confident compared to the Conservatives who over Social Care & School meals really seemed to have shot themselves in the foot. I predict Corbyn & Labour will win next Thursday, quite a turn around from their postition a few weeks back.
I walked past the newspapers ( I use the term broadly ) and all right wing papers were really rattled as they were going for the jugular of Corbyn with their usual lies.
The state of political discussion is terrible and I can only feel it leaves us currently in political mess we are. The papers are biased beyond acceptability in which opinion is presented as fact and facts are false. The biggest interrogators are Paxman and Andrew Neil who both looked ridiculous this week, lacking the ability to interrogate with intelligence and subtlety.
As for my hopes....... anyone but May.
In my view she has been found out, cannot tolerate being questioned, panics under pressure and even if she wins she has been exposed to even her own party.
But like my dreams ...
Tories 'fake' (by editing) a series of statements they say Corbyn made. And in fact they are contrary to what he actually said.
Then, because party political broadcasts etc are regulated by Ofcom, which would outlaw this sort of thing, they don't put it out via mainstream broadcasters. Oh no. They put it out via Facebook, which is unregulated. And doesn't care if an ad is just a lie. So basically, the Tory campaign has made up some lies, and then put them out in a way that will escape scrutiny (because they know they are lies, but know that if it's 'on Facebook', a whole bunch of people will accept it as fact without engaging their critical faculties or checking it against other sources). ;angry ;angry ;angry
How insulting is that, to Tory voters?????
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/02/labour-accuses-tories-of-fake-news-over-video-of-corbyn-ira-comments