Anything Political

[HSR 286]

16 hours ago, Stuart.C said:

 

I suspect most would be Recorded incorrectly, probably due to similar names, as opposed to actually voting multiple times.

 

Surely address would be far more important than name..

Their have been examples of people turning up with a bag full of votes..all totally legal.. 

 

DJ. your last post sent my screen haywire! Very similar to viewing YouTube! Heavy data me thinks...

 

Come Friday the 13th will we be up Wolf Creek without a paddle..

 

[DJ360 6,730]

My last post was not as long as the previous one.  It'll be all that Toxic stuff from th Tory Manifesto...

[MargieH 7,600]

I've just had a letter from Boris asking for my support!   Too late, mate... I've already voted and IT WASN'T FOR YOU.    It had a return address on the back - perhaps I should seal the envelope again and send it back?

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

My vote has also been cast. It didn't go in Boris's direction...and it certainly didn't go in Corbyn's!

[Brew 5,421]

 

 

T

This is way too much much Col. 

I'll try and keep my answer to a more succinct level. There are so many point to cover quoting will be a pain so I’m going intersperse my answer and make it red for ease of reading

 

What I was actually doing was demonstrating that out of something like £20Bn. PER YEAR of borrowing, or around £200 Bn total,  the examples of investment you provided only account for a small fraction.  So.. if you see public spending on services and benefits slashed, while tax breaks are given to the wealthiest and to corporations, then the obvious net effect is that the Govt is borrowing to fund tax cuts. 

 

I’m not going to rehash or apportion blame for things we have discussed previously so the reason for the huge debt we gained in 2008/9 is a given.

 

Labours profligacy during 2002/7 saw debt rise to 37% of GDP, note this was before the crash. Most of this is due to Labours increase in public spending, particularly social security.

Typical Labour boom n bust that was clearly unsustainable.

 

Perhaps we can clear one point straight away. The have been NO cuts in public spending, ( by ANY government) a slowing down yes, re-directed and redistributed yes but cuts no. And the rate of public spending increase has slowed.

Taking the TOTAL of tax breaks (Labour party press figures) it’s only 70Bn over six years or 11.5Bn per annum. The money you are referring to is the budget deficit, the amount we need to meet public spending commitments.

It is also true that borrowing has steadily reduced since 2010 and is still going down. We borrowed around 16% of GDP, that money has to be paid back. We are now down to borrowing 4%.

 

From a political point of view it is a perfect storm of an international economic crisis being used as an excuse to justify a far right, neoliberal 'slash and burn' approach to the public sector. Hyperbole and conjecture that has no basis in fact.

 

There is a very clear and obvious reason why the rich have got ludicrously richer, while at the other end of the scale, foodbanks, homelessness, rough sleeping etc., etc. are all rising. 

 

 Not clear at all and this is a Labour favourite, misdirection, smoke and mirrors. The rich get richer purely by virtue of the fact they are rich. The expression ‘money to money’ is a truism, always has been, always will be and no amount of jealous backbiting will change it.

Joe Soap goes to the Post Office and invests £100 at 1%. He sees a return of £1 and pays no tax.

Basil Fortseque-Smythe invests £1,000,000 at the same rate, receives interest of £10,000 of which he loses £4,500 in tax. Who contributes more?

 

I don't accept that all those tax breaks just get invested.  An awful lot of it is clearly getting 'offshored'.

 

You have figures for that? Once ‘offshored’ what do they do with it?

We have to be careful to recognise the difference between avoidance and evasion. Tax haven schemes, (avoidance) are legal. The expression ‘money lost’ (2.7Bn) through tax avoidance is rubbish! The money was never owed in the first place so nothing is lost.

Tax evasion is illegal and estimated to be almost twice the size of legal schemes. (4.4Bn)

 

The benefit of tax breaks is difficult to quantify. Ireland lowered business taxes (they could afford to after GB bailed them out) and attracted Aviva, a 7.5Bn  pound company plus others to move there. It can be argued that the tax cuts here persuaded others not to follow Aviva and thus we retained the tax revenue.

 

They are not interested in investing in this country. except in cases there they can dish out nice lucrative contracts to their mates.. and their assortment of tame 'preferred bidders', especially to those whoe honest work they so frequently replace.

 

The government like any big business has criteria businesses have to meet before they are allowed to tender for contracts. The tender process is also subject to EU rules and therefore transparent and open to challenge. Who is doing this 'honest work' that you mention?

 

However.. to move on to the main point at issue.. you have a very different understanding of Govt. borrowing to what I have.. which is why I am very confident in repeating that it is not directly comparable to household budgeting.

 

You are missing the principle I’m making, Brown borrowed heavily and we all enjoyed a short period of ‘doing well’ but we were living on borrowed money. Like the housewife who owes to the ‘tallyman’ it's nice having a new telly but it has to be paid back. You cannot with certainty say we can buy our way out of debt. There is a system, illegal, called 'kiting' you pay one credit card by borrowing on a second, to pay the first then borrow from a third...

 

Waddo and Oldphil have both hinted at it.  The Govt.. effectively borrows from the country, and can borrow vast amounts more (in percentage terms) than any household safely could.

What has the size or source of the debt got to do with anything?

 

2. Debt Interest Payments as % of GDP.

When I took out a mortgage, my monthly mortgage payments were over 45% of my disposable income. Yet, I didn’t feel on the verge of bankruptcy. Although it was a big chunk of my monthly payments, I could afford the cost of servicing the debt.

 

Stupid analogy, if the remaining 55% of disposable income is £50,000 of course he could manage. Try working a 45% repayment on an average £25k gross and see how far you get.

If the country and the economy is doing well the fine you can afford the repayments but

 

But lets not forget we are NOT talking about current levels; we are talking about the humungous amounts Corbyn intends  borrowing.

 

Japan with chronic levels of debt, pays an even smaller % of income towards debt interest payments.

Comparing us with other countries is not helpful, Pointing out that someone/thing is worse off than we are does nothing. If debt continues to rise inexorably there has to come a time when it cannot be paid back.  When does debt change from manageable to chronic? 

 

 

 

This is why the Greek, Portuguese and Spanish economies are experiencing a deep recession. There is a fall in private sector spending therefore, it can overcome wasted capacity, and help the economy to recover. If a recession ends earlier, if unemployment is reduced, there is a significant benefit for the economy.

 

And here we are again. It CAN overcome, IF recession ends, IF unemployment reduces.  Not once does it say it WILL. He has glossed over the Greek and Portuguese (plus Ireland, Cyprus, Spain) situation. They went to the wall when they could not meet the repayments on their debts. The reasons why are irrelevant. The EU bailed them out and voila  their economies are flowing again, (except Greece). Borrowing to get out from a crippling debt is at best a huge gamble at worst a catastrophic folly.

You don’t like the household analogy but in reality it’s just the same but at micro not macro level. Thatcher alluded to it, as a school girl she ‘learned to balance the books’.

 

6. Governments never pay back debt

Governments don’t really pay back debt. They just roll it over.

 

A simplistic way to look at it. If there is no need to pay back or we simply roll on the debt for ever why is a major plank of all parties a reduction in national debt? If all we do is borrow more and more why do we even bother about the level of debt repayment?

 

Have we learned nothing from the crash of ’08? Deficit spending and failure to meet repayments is what got us into this mess to start with but hey ho no problem we’ll just borrow some more and spend some more and everything will come up roses tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

There is a good chance the government will recover all the bank bailouts. They could even make a profit on this.

 

There is a good CHANCE, They COULD make a profit… I COULD win the Lotto Jackpot…

 

It is true the UK borrowed over 200% of GDP in the late 1940s. However, this was helped by:

• Patriotic duty to buy war bonds,
• Relatively high level of private sector saving
• Loan fro the US

 

I take it we are ignoring the time scales here. The WW1 debt to the US took 100 years to clear, WW2 61 years, war bonds issued in 1927 paid back in 2014  and even further back the debts from 1720 were not settled until 2018.

If we didn't have to pay huge amounts in interest that money could go towards public spending. At present levels we are paying 48 Billion  pounds a year in interest on 1.7 Trillion pounds of debt. (86%GDP.)

If Corbyn and his band of lunatics have their way that debt (possible increase of 1.2 Tr) will virtually double. Simple arithmetic says repayments will be around  90 Billion a year or 1.7 Billion  pounds a WEEK! 

Economists can quote Keynes and Marx till they are blue in the face but all those fancy theories are just that, theories and you cannot overlook the fact the if you spend more than you receive bad things happen.

If growth is sluggish or low, it will be much more difficult to reduce debt to GDP ratio
 

 

 

[radfordred 6,284]

My new gainful employment tells most postal votes which was a massive amount where returned the very next day, no faffing about or reading & listening to all the bollocks & way before all the door knocking started, my Labour vote is crossed & sealed, I will have to decide tomorrow if I post it or not? 

[Brew 5,421]

On 12/8/2019 at 10:39 AM, oldphil said:

I agree. Could we persuade them to stand, do you think?

 

 I think one lunatic party is enough really........................... I was to add something here but Col would have been all over me!    

 

 

[HSR 286]

No bias or agenda, but does anybody know the 'increase' in the numbers of barge dwellers & homeless in the Uxbridge constituency over the last few weeks ?  

[Stuart.C 491]

That's in relation to this presumably;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/06/operation-votey-mcvoteface-voter-registration-drive-targets-boat-dwellers-and-sofa-surfers

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boat-owners-exploit-loophole-to-unseat-boris-in-uxbridge-elections-mgcbpbgww

 

Shouldn't boat owners be classed as a Floating Vote..

 

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

Seems they want anyone who has ever passed through to register and vote with the specific aim of ousting the Blessed Boris.

 

On that basis I can claim a vote in virtually every constituency in the land after 60 years of travelling up and down for work.

 

The Rowntree Trust Ltd is a Quaker/Liberal organisation (that's paying for this), that wants openness and fairness in politics, fine, very laudable.  Sponsoring an organisation that targets a specific party and acts against it seems slightly 'off' to me.

The Boaty Mc yadayada   group are encouraging people to register in more than one place. They say only vote once but once they have more than one registered 'Local Connectiont' location what's to stop them having two or three bites of the cherry?

 

Quote:

Some examples of a ‘Local Connection’ address may be: a boatyard you have used, a friend’s house, a place of work or study, a doctors or other service that you have used like a library, leisure centre, water facilities or somewhere that you have moored up.

 

They are mostly 'cruisers', boaters who have no permanent mooring. Perhaps they could pay for the campaign themselves and not rely on a grant - after all they pay no council taxes

[Stuart.C 491]

I doubt there are significant numbers to make any difference, these are not ALL boat dwellers only ones who choose not to stay put.

The Sofa surfers will not want to found, that's why the majority are surfing, neither will some of the boaters.

 

Firstly they have to be persuade to apply for registration.

Then they have to be sucessfull, having met the (loose) criterior, see below, (note under address1)

Then they have to vote, there being no guarantee they will all vote against Conservatives.

 

Some of those people will be minded to vote so will already be registered.

 

 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

This is way too much much Col. 

I'll try and keep my answer to a more succinct level. There are so many point to cover quoting will be a pain so I’m going intersperse my answer and make it red for ease of reading

 

  Brew, it wasn't my intention for you to have to reply blow by blow to the Economics 'Blogs' I quoted. They there to provide a different view, but one with some authority.. and one which others might learn from too.

 

These blogs. give a much more nuanced ( and less scary)  view of the Topic.

 

They also articulate a very clear difference between 'household' and 'Govt' borrowing.  Household debt is entirely 'external' in that the household borrows from banks, mortgage lenders etc., who demand high interest and fixed terms.  Govt. borrowing is much more long term, much lower interest etc., but crucially, is mostly ( at least 70%) 'internal'.  It's an entirely different mechanism.  And yes.. all borrowing has to be repaid eventually, but as you have yourself quoted.. it can take many decades without significantly harming the country.  So, I simply take the view that borrowing is.. in reality.. far less of a problem than it is claimed to be by some, and has been used as an excuse for austerity and wholesale destruction of services by this Tory Govt for a decade.

 

23 hours ago, Brew said:

Perhaps we can clear one point straight away. The have been NO cuts in public spending, ( by ANY government) a slowing down yes, re-directed and redistributed yes but cuts no. And the rate of public spending increase has slowed.

 

Semantics. 

 

You might have a point if the Tory approach could reasonably be seen in terms of 'reform'.  But it isn't.  It is purely about reducing costs, attacking public services and asset stripping.  How anyone can deny this is beyond me.

 

Yes.  the EU has rules about tendering and that is part of the reason for the far right Tory obsession with Brexit.  They don't like being forced onto a level playing field.  The other point is that lobbying is intense and unrelenting in our system, and far too many MPs and other political figures have far too many vested interests.  When 'called out' on irregularities.. the Govt. just ignore and move on.

 

All services have seen reduced 'real terms' funding when inflation is taken into account.  You are also effectively admitting to a 're-distribution' of Govt spending from Public Services to tax cuts.. which is precisely what I've been saying, except that you don't recognise that the Tories have chosen to use borrowing to fund tax cuts.. rather than services.  And yes, I know that you will argue that tax cuts increase investment, employment etc.., but that's by no means automatic, as the wealthiest don't spend money, they salt it away.. and there's no guarantee whatever that they will invest it here. It's a very specious argument.. as is the repeatedly disproved 'trickle down' argument.

 

Local Authorities have seen brutal cuts to their central Govt. grant, whilst being 'loaded' with additional responsibilities in for e.g. Adult Social Care and Youth Services.

 

Some services.. including my own Profession...also Surestart and others have been effectively deleted from the portfolio as all of their funding has been withdrawn. In may case, I have seen a profession of higly qualified and experiencewd

 

You know full well that numbers of Police, NHS staff, Doctors in the NHS, have suffered catastrophic contraction. Some due to deliberate funding shortages, some due to Brexit lies, some due to scrapping of training bursaries or increase in tuition fees.

 

You know full well that Defence, Police, Fire Service, Social Work, Probation Services and many others have suffered funding shortages, inept privatisation attempts and other mismanagement under the Tories.  You also know that at root of all of this is a combination of political hatred of public services/spending/welfare and a deliberate policy of privatisation, partly from a deluded ideological view that the private sector is 'always' better, but also from a blatant process of asset stripping and profiteering.

 

You appear to be trying to dismiss the increasing wealth gap as merely a natural consequence of the economic climate.. rather than a predictable and entirely deliberate consequence of hateful Tory Policy.

 

We will no doubt continue to disagree on causes and effects.. but that's irrelevant to the election for me.  I  cannot forsee any circumstances where voting for a Tory party of any stripe.. much less one led by a lying sociopathic crook like Johnson, and infested with the likes of Gove, Rees-Mogg, Javid et.al., would be an option for me.

[Brew 5,421]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

cvanThese blogs. give a much more nuanced ( and less scary)  view of the Topic.

I'm rather nuanced out at the moment Col it seems to me  it means 'let's look for a complex solution to a simple problem'.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

it can take many decades without significantly harming the country

 

It takes many decades because of the sheer size of the debt and we can't see the future or what is going to derail the plans. Nor can we  say if it harms the country or not. Who knows where we would be had we not been saddled with billions and billions of debt?

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You might have a point if the Tory approach could reasonably be seen in terms of 'reform'.  But it isn't.  It is purely about reducing costs, attacking public services and asset stripping.

 

It is about reducing costs, it's not asset stripping or attacking anything except where self-aggrandising councils need reigning in. The government do not decide where the money goes, they leave that to the councils, if they want to spend it on vanity projects then so be it. 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Yes.  the EU has rules about tendering and that is part of the reason for the far right Tory obsession with Brexit.  They don't like being forced onto a level playing field

 

A flight of fancy that cannot be substantiated.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

All services have seen reduced 'real terms' funding when inflation is taken into account.  You are also effectively admitting to a 're-distribution' of Govt spending from Public Services to tax cuts.. which is precisely what I've been saying, except that you don't recognise that the Tories have chosen to use borrowing to fund tax cuts

 

'In real terms' is a misnomer popular with those who seek to hide hard facts. It involves choosing a point in history and comparing it to the present situation. How far back you go depends on the amount of difference you wish to emphasise. It's good old fashioned 'spin doctoring'.

You're taking an extreme view of what I said; it's only in your opinion that tax cuts were funded by reduced spending. It's strange you can 'see' the benefit of spending billions to make gains at some future date that may or may not happen -  yet cannot see the immediate returns to business profits, confidence and therefore employment of a relatively tiny tax cut.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

as is the repeatedly disproved 'trickle down' argument

 

The trickle down and money multiplier theory we spoke of earlier are so close there is no discernable difference

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Local Authorities have seen brutal cuts to their central Govt. grant, whilst being 'loaded' with additional responsibilities in for e.g. Adult Social Care and Youth Services.

 

You mean they have been forced to concentrate on what's important and lowered spending on non-essentials. It's entirely proper that councils take on these responsibilities. They are 'on the ground', can see what's needed and where rather than government and faceless mandarins making the decisions.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

You know full well that numbers of Police, NHS staff, Doctors in the NHS, have suffered catastrophic contraction. Some due to deliberate funding shortages, some due to Brexit lies, some due to scrapping of training bursaries or increase in tuition fees.

 

Yup agreed but the cuts were not, as you have in the past implied, to punish the great unwashed. They were  the result of incompetence, no ulterior motive and that nice Mr Johnson has promised to make it all better after the election.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

ou appear to be trying to dismiss the increasing wealth gap as merely a natural consequence of the economic climate.

 

Nothing to do with the climate, economic or otherwise. Ignoring criminals, making money is a talent, much like a painter or a singer, some can do it, most can't.

There is also the other way whereby you already have money (usually inherited) then making more becomes so easy it borders on the ridiculous and much makes more.

There is a lot of jealousy regarding wealth, to some it's an anathema that money was not earned by the 'sweat of tha' brow'. I acknowledge you are not amongst them, but I suspect you and most here will  leave a nest egg, only the amount will vary.

[DJ360 6,730]

2 hours ago, Brew said:

I'm rather nuanced out at the moment Col it seems to me  it means 'let's look for a complex solution to a simple problem'.

 

We simply disagree about the nature and mechanism of Govt borrowing, and the level of Govt borrowing which is really damaging, rather than just a stick to beat the electorate with.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

It takes many decades because of the sheer size of the debt and we can't see the future or what is going to derail the plans. Nor can we  say if it harms the country or not. Who knows where we would be had we not been saddled with billions and billions of debt?

 

I seem to recall that the general advice on mortgages.. which are the most significant form of debt for most households, was to pay them off as slowly as possible..

Secondly.. the UK is nowhere near the top of the list of most indebted nations.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

It is about reducing costs, it's not asset stripping or attacking anything except where self-aggrandising councils need reigning in. The government do not decide where the money goes, they leave that to the councils, if they want to spend it on vanity projects then so be it. 

 

On your first sentence.  Reducing costs is the stated reason.  Destroying services and reducing 'the size of the state'.. is the motive.  It is an openly stated aim of far right politicians to 'reduce the state'.  On your second.. it is a massive cop out.  The old 'We've given them enough money.. it's up to them how they spend it.'.. is purely a smokescreen to hide cuts.  The reality is that Councils are forced to choose. There are no vanity projects where I live. Just a council trying to provide all  services with grossly cut funds.  But then again.. we have no Tory MPs.. so we don't get any recognition for good management of funds.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

A flight of fancy that cannot be substantiated.

 

 

But given the evidence of lobbying.. and the rhetoric of the Leave campaign.. it can also not be dismissed.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

'In real terms' is a misnomer popular with those who seek to hide hard facts. It involves choosing a point in history and comparing it to the present situation. How far back you go depends on the amount of difference you wish to emphasise. It's good old fashioned 'spin doctoring'.

 

Semantics again.  I didn't mention timescales.. but I will say that any year on year funding settlement which does not include an increase to cover inflation is.. by definition.. a 'real terms' cut.

And this has been going on for 10 years.  This is not 'spin'.. this is cold.. hard.. fact.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The trickle down and money multiplier theory we spoke of earlier are so close there is no discernable difference

 

Quite wrong.  'Trickle down' claims that wealthy people will spend their money.. which will benefit the poor.  The flaw is that the wealthy do not spend their money.  They 'salt away' significant amounts, whilst still having enough 'disposable' to live a very comfortable life.  Trickle down has also been shown to only work even in theory when applied to very high tax rates.

 

The 'multiplier' is based on the totally different scenario where ALL of any given sum of money..usually Govt funding.. is spent.  It therefore automatically increases demand, employment etc... and of course poorer people will spend much more of, if not all of their available income.. therefore generating demand.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

You mean they have been forced to concentrate on what's important and lowered spending on non-essentials. It's entirely proper that councils take on these responsibilities. They are 'on the ground', can see what's needed and where rather than government and faceless mandarins making the decisions.

 

You know that this is nothing like the reality of the Tory approach to local Govt. They would cheerfully do away with it if they could... but instead they use it as a convenient whipping boy and load unpopular/ difficult areas of policy.. especially social policy.. onto Local Concils.. so that they can blame same when things go belly up.  Please tell me why Health is a 'national' concern (NHS), but  'Adult Social Care' isn't.  There are countless other examples.

 

And do you regard Parks, Gardens, Museums, Art Galleries, Other Local Amenities, Public Libraries, Leisure and Recreation facilities, Local Transport, etc... etc.. as 'non essentials'  Do you really want to see them all gone?? .. because that is the direction of travel under the Tories. Did we not meet at Wollaton Hall a few weeks ago?

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Yup agreed but the cuts were not, as you have in the past implied, to punish the great unwashed. They were  the result of incompetence, no ulterior motive and that nice Mr Johnson has promised to make it all better after the election.

 

I'm mystified how you can claim that these cuts are merely incompetent.. whilst claiming the rest of Tory economic policy is so sound. 

 

At least you imply that Boris Johnson is a charlatan and you clearly grasp the profound irony of him promising to repair.... after the election.. all that he steadfastly denies breaking before it. 

 

[radfordred 6,284]

In my little gang of about 10 that always meet up before kick off, some I have known 40 years & knowing the working class paths they have trodden, admittedly all our kids have followed more academic paths & we all live in the better parts of Nottingham, I was now the only Labour voter amongst us! 

[MargieH 7,600]

As far as I'm concerned, where you live, how much money you've got or whether you did well academically should have nothing to do with whether you vote Labour or not.   Even if one political party would in theory benefit me more,  I want to vote for "the many not the few" as that is the RIGHT thing to do!

 

[siddha 825]

Well said MargieH!!

Keep it rational and don't get diverted by irrelevance.

[Stavertongirl 1,719]

I sent my postal vote off soon after I got it so most of the electioneering has been an irrelevance to me really. I do however object to having political adverts for labour popping up in the games I play on my phone!

[Jill Sparrow 10,307]

I suppose it's apt, SG. They're all playing games...with us, the electorate.

 

As for the mantra, "For the many, not the few" , I venture to suggest that no matter what their political persuasion, the real mission statement is "For Ourselves".

 

But then I'm just a weary cynic who's heartily sick of hearing about it.

 

In the words of a topical favourite, "Bah! Humbug!" 

[HSR 286]

 

Fully intended voting the Brexit Party this time.

However i was unhappy when they stood down Candidates in Conservative seats..due to some extra addition to the deal Boris negotiated with Nigel.

Farage now claims an element of sceptism about Johnson's addition..i don't recall any negotiatons with the EU in either case.

normal service resumed..

[HSR 286]

Why do so many people on here vote by post?

Thought the Peterborough by-election was unique..

[MargieH 7,600]

@Jill Sparrow   I have to disagree about ALL political parties just being 'For Ourselves' 

I think that EVEN Boris and Co probably do care a bit  about 'the many' in some small way, but this is overridden by their allegiance to 'the few' 

I believe  in the  broad principles of the Labour Party, whoever their present leader, and think that Jeremy Corbyn would do his best for the country by attempting to address the gap between the rich and the. poor if he were to be elected.  I have enjoyed listening to him in debates and interviews and feel he has given honest intelligent answers without shouting and verbally abusing the other parties.

Not sure about the Lib Dems.   I voted to remain in the EU, but agree with Labour's proposal for holding  a different  referendum with a more  informed choice this time.   

The Green Party cares deeply for our planet which obviously means they care for the people who live on it, but they probably don't have the experience, as yet? to govern.

 

So, in conclusion, I don't think that ALL politicians are in it just for themselves, though no doubt some are!   

 

None of us is perfect and human nature always tries to make us protect our OWN  interests, but I believe it is right to sometimes deny our own interests for the sake of others.

 

 

 

 

[MargieH 7,600]

32 minutes ago, HSR said:

Why do so many people on here vote by post?

Thought the Peterborough by-election was unique..

We did a postal vote because we are away from home on voting day

[Waddo 921]

7 minutes ago, MargieH said:

  I voted to remain in the EU, but agree with Labour's proposal for holding  a different  referendum with a more  informed choice this time.

A referendum is the 'people's ' chance to speak. I don't think that any party would have given all the facts. But i don't agree about having another referendum, what happens if it doesn't go 'they're way '?. Do we have another one. But also what happens if it goes the other way? Do we then have a best of three?. It's took too long now, and only because they were naive enough to think that we all would vote to stay. Once upon a time, (no its not a fairy story) we were called Great Britain, now, folks just refer to it as Britain!. The song used to be "Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves. I see it now as " Rule Britannia, Britannia rule sod all.

[MargieH 7,600]

@Waddo  does this country need to 'rule' other countries?   I think we will be great again when we have justice for the poorer and less privileged people in our society.