Discussion:
BoJo’s Commons performance last night
(too old to reply)
Rod Speed
2019-09-30 09:57:30 UTC
Permalink
The opposition have to crash his "Brexit do or die" boast into
the wall
before they force a general election. Perhaps not even then. I'm
not
convinced that Corbyn is capable of biting this particular
bullet.
So, he's prepared to leave the country without a functioning
government
rather than act in the national interest to solve it?
We haven't had a functional government for ages. NI, rather longer.
Why do we bother with having a Parliament at all then?
Parliament makes laws, represents citizens and scrutinises
government.
That's why we have it.
But it's non-functional. If we need the things you list, we need to
have a new one.
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed. It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
Tough! They should have thought about that but at the time
Maybe, but the fact is *no-one* thought of that possibility at the time.
It was beyond comprehension that an opposition would turn down a
legitimate opportunity to get themselves elected.
That’s bullshit when its obvious from the polls that Labour would
lose lots of its current seats in a general election held now and
could well even see Corbyn flushed where he belongs as a result.
At least the Tories were aware that it was a flawed piece of legislation
by the time of the 2017 general election, when they included its repeal in
their manifesto.
Have fun explaining why they didn’t actually repeal it.
but they were too concerned with saving their own skins. Libdems suffered
for it too.
The Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto pledged to repeal it. I suspect
that will be a priority when it gets re-relected and has an adequate
majority to get it through.
I don't think we will see a government with an adequate majority for a
*very* long time.
Pity they got it so wrong in the last 3 general elections.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/30/voting-intention-con-33-lab-22-lib-dem-21-brex-12-
If it's going to be decided mainly on Brexit issues,
That’s only going to happen if the UK hasn’t left the EU
on the 31-Oct or by the time an extension expires if Boris
is forced to ask for one and the EU does agree to that.
as looks likely, the Remain vote is terminally, and rather equally split,
Don’t buy that either given that few Labour voters would
be seen dead voting for the LimpDims. They are in fact
MUCH more likely to not actually vote at all.

None of the other partys matter, not even the SNP because
they have such a hold on the seats in scotland now and
have no chance of any seats outside scotland.
which only benefits the Tories.
That’s bullshit too.
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an election, the Tories
will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's current share, meaning
they'll be on course for just the sort of majority you think can't happen.
Yes, but it remains to be seen if Boris can actually achieve
a brexit in any form before the general election.
.
Boris the Loser may be popular with the senile delinquents that frequent
Conservative Clubs but he is out of his depth and showing it with every
successive disaster that he causes.
He clearly managed to keep the voters happy when mayor, TWICE.

Bet that’s why the Torys chose to have him as PM.
So you say.
But I think the opposition have a national responsibility, not just
their own self-interest. They are perpetuating what is an obviously
very unsatisfactory situation, by pathetically running scared of the
only thing that could possibly get them into the power they crave, ie a
general election.
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic fringe
of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal. That at
least is their intention.
That's certainly the peg they choose to hang their 'Oh God, we're going to
lose any election' hat on at the moment.
And we'll see if it works...
abelard
2019-09-30 10:03:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:18:00 +0100, Martin Brown
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
It wasn't so much that it was dodgy, but that it had constitutional
implications that no one thought through (as we are now seeing). It
should have contained a sunset clause.
Lack of a sunset clause *MADE* it dodgy. They should have thought it
through but lots of *OUR* UK government's legislation is badly done.
The "Dangerous dogs act" springs
with bare fangs
to mind as a concrete example.
Interestingly they always blame the EU for any UK government mistakes.
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-30 10:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Parliament is completely deadlocked as it is.
Bullshit it is. It is only deadlocked on the brexit issue.
Supply is still fine and other legislation still goes thru.
No it doesn't. Even with the supply and confidence agreement with the
DUP, Boris does not have a majority he can count on.
If a no confidence motion were to be tabled now, he would certainly lose
it.
If he were to engineer a new session of Parliament and a Queen's speech,
as he tried recently, he'd lose the vote on that too. And he'd lose a
vote on any budgetary measures, ie spending plans, as well.
He is hamstrung. He can do nothing of any significance. Parliament is
deadlocked and is being held to ransom by an opposition more interested
in playing childish games than legitimately getting themselves into
power.
And it clearly wasn’t deadlocked when they tried to
force Boris to ask for an extension and it remains to
be seen if that will work to get an extension too.
He says not, and with such certainty that I assume he has some cunning
plan up his sleeve to avoid it.
It won't be any more deadlocked whatever the result of any election.
That’s bullshit too if no coalition is possible.
Eh?
It could even end up as hopeless as Belgium
or Stormont.
That's always a risk with any election. Nothing new there.
But it may not be at all.
Corse it will unless it happens after some form of
brexit given that half the country wants to remain.
But the Remain vote is hopelessly divided between Labour, the LibDems,
the Greens, the SNP and various other odds and sods.
That doesn't help them; it only helps Boris.
Recent French obituaries point out Jacques Chirac worked with no majority
for many years.

As part of Boris's dictatorial purge to remove dissenting voices from the
party, he created his own situation. Boris knew what he was doing. Since
then he has been asked to reverse the purge but refused. So let him get
on with it.

It's not anyone else's job to clean up Boris's mess.
abelard
2019-09-30 10:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
But the Remain vote is hopelessly divided between Labour, the LibDems,
the Greens, the SNP and various other odds and sods.
That doesn't help them; it only helps Boris.
Recent French obituaries point out Jacques Chirac worked with no majority
for many years.
As part of Boris's dictatorial purge to remove dissenting voices from the
party, he created his own situation. Boris knew what he was doing. Since
then he has been asked to reverse the purge but refused. So let him get
on with it.
It's not anyone else's job to clean up Boris's mess.
your helpful advice on how boris should run the tory
party is much valued

in view of your advice we have decided to allow 170
anti-democratic socialists to take their places as tory
candidates in all the most likely tory win seats
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-30 10:20:45 UTC
Permalink
The opposition have to crash his "Brexit do or die" boast into
the wall before they force a general election. Perhaps not even
then. I'm not convinced that Corbyn is capable of biting this
particular bullet.
So, he's prepared to leave the country without a functioning
government rather than act in the national interest to solve it?
We haven't had a functional government for ages. NI, rather
longer.
Why do we bother with having a Parliament at all then?
Parliament makes laws, represents citizens and scrutinises
government. That's why we have it.
But it's non-functional.  If we need the things you list, we need to
have a new one.
It is non-functional because of previous dodgy legislation created to
help keep the Tory-Liberal pact in power (it served that purpose OK).
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed.  It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
Tough! They should have thought about that but at the time but they were
too concerned with saving their own skins. Libdems suffered for it too.
The Conservative Party's 2017 manifesto pledged to repeal it.  I
suspect that will be a priority when it gets re-relected and has an
adequate majority to get it through.
I don't think we will see a government with an adequate majority for a
*very* long time. Boris the Loser may be popular with the senile
delinquents that frequent Conservative Clubs but he is out of his depth
and showing it with every successive disaster that he causes.
But I think the opposition have a national responsibility, not just
their own self-interest.  They are perpetuating what is an obviously
very unsatisfactory situation, by pathetically running scared of the
only thing that could possibly get them into the power they crave, ie a
general election.
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic
fringe of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal.
That at least is their intention. I don't trust Boris *OR* Corbyn.
All true. Isn't it strange how supporters of rule-breaking Boris now
invent some imaginary obligation about not allowing a minority government.
Boris should have thought about that.

Essentially Boris is trying to do what Trump did to Congresional
representatives from his own party by quashing every last vestige of
opposition. Sadly for Boris, our lawmakers are made of sterner stuff.
Peeler
2019-09-30 10:23:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 19:57:30 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Post by Rod Speed
And we'll see if it works...
All we'll see is YOU lonely senile pest trolling here like there was no
tomorrow! And now fuck off to your Australian ng!
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Terry Casey
2019-09-30 13:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.

If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
--
Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
The Natural Philosopher
2019-09-30 13:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Bless!

He swallowed it all. Hook line and sinker
--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell
n***@moo.uklinux.net
2019-09-30 21:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Bless!
Well, isn't it nice that his Holiness has put yet in another appearance!

#Paul
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?

At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Keema's Nan
2019-09-30 14:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....

Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?

Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?

Car?

Dishwasher?

Tumble Dryer?

If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
Incubus
2019-09-30 14:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....
Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?
Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?
Car?
Dishwasher?
Tumble Dryer?
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job stolen
because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen because of
freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area stolen because of
freedom of movement etc.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 23:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
--
*IF A TURTLE DOESN'T HAVE A SHELL, IS HE HOMELESS OR NAKED?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
2019-10-01 02:53:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:34:16 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
You forgot the speculators, blowing their roubles on UK property
because no UK national can buy, despite the trashed pound.

Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory
policy will provide open borders to those with cash.

AB
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-10-01 06:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory policy
will provide open borders to those with cash.
Free movement of capital is one of the basic tenets of the EU Treaty. It
would be illegal to try to prevent a national of another EU member state
buying a property in the UK.

Sorry you don't agree with the very position you have been advocating.
Perhaps you're not so very much cleverer than us after all.
--
Evremonde
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
2019-10-01 20:38:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:37:22 +0100, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Even if UK born individuals never make the rental charges, tory policy
will provide open borders to those with cash.
Free movement of capital is one of the basic tenets of the EU Treaty. It
would be illegal to try to prevent a national of another EU member state
buying a property in the UK.
Sorry you don't agree with the very position you have been advocating.
Perhaps you're not so very much cleverer than us after all.
Hint, Roubles are not euro.


AB
Incubus
2019-10-01 10:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-01 12:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-01 13:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-01 16:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
--
*Stable Relationships Are For Horses.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Incubus
2019-10-01 16:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
Steve Walker
2019-10-01 21:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.

SteveW
Fredxx
2019-10-02 00:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what
you will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't
afford to live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
It sounds good to me.
Yup. More load on the NHS and care services with fewer willing to work in
them. Just what the doctor ordered.
Significantly less load on the NHS, you mean.
You think immigrant workers put more load on the NHS than the retired?
More Brexiteer false news.
More Remainer false news, assuming that all immigrants are workers.
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-02 10:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-10-02 11:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
--
Evremonde
Joe
2019-10-02 13:08:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:37:47 +0100
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there
are far to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage
and claiming tax credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in
full time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the
employer. What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those
in training, etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of
them on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy
of significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
I think there was a certain element of the subsidising of exports in a
way that the EU wouldn't notice.

But there's been a lot of 'higher minimum wage' stuff in the US
recently. Long enough ago that some of the results of a government
deciding how productive people are can be seen.
--
Joe
AlexK
2019-10-02 15:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:37:47 +0100
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there
are far to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage
and claiming tax credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in
full time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the
employer. What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those
in training, etc.
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of
them on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy
of significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
I think there was a certain element of the subsidising of exports in a
way that the EU wouldn't notice.
Hardly any of those who benefit from the tax credit system
work in areas of the economy involved in exports.
Post by Joe
But there's been a lot of 'higher minimum
wage' stuff in the US recently.
Because their minimum wage is by far
the lowest in the first and second world.
Post by Joe
Long enough ago that some of the results of a government
deciding how productive people are can be seen.
Peeler
2019-10-02 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 01:37:07 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH trolling senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

REALLY???? 01:37 am in Australia? AGAIN? And you are up and trolling,
already, you clinically insane trolling senile asshole? LOL
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Grik-barstardo®™
2019-10-02 16:37:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:02:03 +0200, Foreskin Peeler
<***@valid.invalid> wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Hypocritical much, anus?
Peeler
2019-10-02 19:11:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 09:37:02 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-barstardo®™", farted
Post by Grik-barstardo®™
<fluhs Grik skata>
Hypocritical much, anus?
Clinically insane much, pedophilic dreckserb Razovic?
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"That [referring to the term "consenting adults"] is just an outdated legal
construct. Are you telling me that a 13-year old who spends 15 hours a day
on Facebook is incapable of consent?"
MID: <Og0VE.1298131$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-02 13:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax doesn't help those
already below it, ie the poorly paid.

The UK personal allowance is £12500 or about £6 an hour for a 40 hour
week. The minimum wage is £8.21. You could make the personal allowance
£100000 without making any difference at all to the poorest paid.


But then I'd guess you already knew this.
--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-02 16:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Agreed. The policy was IIRC imported from America by the Blair
government, no doubt intended to release low-paid people from the
poverty trap, but actually with the effect of placing millions of them
on short-time contracts. The Conservatives' alternative policy of
significantly increasing personal income tax allowances works much
better and the tax credit system should now be phased out.
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
The UK personal allowance is £12500 or about £6 an
hour for a 40 hour week. The minimum wage is £8.21.
It was much worse than that under Brown.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
You could make the personal allowance £100000 without
making any difference at all to the poorest paid.
But it would make a big difference to the number who pay any income tax.
Peeler
2019-10-02 19:14:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 02:56:49 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's latest trollshit>

02:56 in Australia??? And you've been up and trolling for OVER AN HOUR,
AGAIN? Did you ask your psychiatrists to upgrade your medication as I told
you to do, you totally fucked up senile troll?
--
***@down.the.farm about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$***@gioia.aioe.org>
Grik-barstardo®™
2019-10-02 19:21:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 21:14:45 +0200, Peeler <***@valid.invalid>
wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Hypocritical much, anus?
Peeler
2019-10-02 20:14:51 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 12:21:12 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-barstardo®™", farted
Post by Grik-barstardo®™
<fluhs Grik skata>
Hypocritical much, anus?
Suffering much here, clinically insane frustrated pedophilic dreckserb
Razovic? Of COURSE you are!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-03 10:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
--
*Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Pamela
2019-10-03 14:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Isn't AlexK a Rod Speed sock?
dennis@home
2019-10-03 21:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Isn't AlexK a Rod Speed sock?
yes
AlexK
2019-10-03 16:38:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.

And paying everyone a decent wage so they can
pay income tax would see a lot more low level
work automated instead, particularly with agriculture
and the sort of building work that has to be done
in the country and other stuff like in your old
industry and with stuff like driving trains etc.
Peeler
2019-10-03 18:17:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 02:38:19 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH senile asshole's trollshit>

02:38???? And you've been up and trolling for over an hour, AGAIN! LMAO

Don't you want to post for us that long list of your medication, you
clinically insane senile troll?
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-04 10:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.
And not much we can do about that.

My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up wages
via benefits? Seems a very inefficient way of doing things. And leads to
the gig economy with lots of very low paid service jobs that contribute
very little to the economy. I'm not talking about essential services like
health and care, but the vast increase in delivery services where once
we'd have collected such things ourselves. And the high street being full
of coffee shops.
Post by AlexK
And paying everyone a decent wage so they can
pay income tax would see a lot more low level
work automated instead, particularly with agriculture
and the sort of building work that has to be done
in the country and other stuff like in your old
industry and with stuff like driving trains etc.
Isn't that a rather Luddite view?
--
*By the time a man is wise enough to watch his step, he's too old to go anywhere.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JNugent
2019-10-04 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up wages
via benefits?
That, with respect, is a nonsensical question which is based on a
misunderstanding of fact.

We DON'T do that.

The real situation is that some workers are not capable of commanding
enough in wages to maintain and house their families, though that is not
necessarily their fault and certainly neither is it the fault of their
employers. There are jobs which do not pay much because that is the
market clearing rate for that work and the price levels for the
industries' outputs are market-critical and highly market-sensitive.

Unskilled work in retail, catering, hospitality, etc, are good examples.
Just how much can anyone be paid for hoovering a hotel room and making
the bed before margins become unprofitable and/or guests conclude that
the venue is too expensive, for instance? Such jobs work as a system
because those taking them are predominantly single people whose needs
are simple. But if a worker with a family and housing costs to meet
takes such a job, the wages won't be enough. That's NOT the employer's
fault.

Your idea (to be fair, you're not the only one to have it) seems to be
underpinned by a belief that every job - no matter how unskilled and
undemanding - should be well-paid, where that phrase means "paid enough
to maintain a large family and pay a mortgage".

This sort of situation (high "needs", low skills, low labour market
value) was partially addressed by the introduction of Family Allowance
in the late 1940s by the Atlee government and then by the introduction
of Family Income Supplement (FIS) and Housing Benefit under the Heath
government in the early 1970s. Family Allowance has become Child Benefit
and FIS has progressed through Family Credit and one or two other titles
to today's Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit. The payment of
either of those - or Housing Benefit - does not point to a failure in
the labour market. It points to a failure in education and training. In
the 21st century, anyone wanting six children and a house big enough
for them needs skills which are highly valuable to an employer. If they
can't offer that, that's a problem which government has decided to address.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer indirectly, by making up
wages via benefits?
That, with respect, is a nonsensical question which is based on a
misunderstanding of fact.
We DON'T do that.
The real situation is that some workers are not capable of commanding
enough in wages to maintain and house their families, though that is not
necessarily their fault and certainly neither is it the fault of their
employers. There are jobs which do not pay much because that is the
market clearing rate for that work and the price levels for the
industries' outputs are market-critical and highly market-sensitive.
So we subsidise those jobs - or rather the employers - through benefits.

Or if you prefer we subsidise the so called free market.
--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-04 17:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent
wage so they contribute towards running the country?
Yes, but its far from clear that the economy as a whole
would work better that way with those much higher
costs. Most of the lower cost manufacturing is already
long gone because wages are much lower in China
and Bangladesh etc and that is also true of agriculture.
And not much we can do about that.
No point in making that much worse by say jacking up the
minimum wage to a level where those receiving it are earning
enough so that they can make their own contribution to income
tax. They already do with the VAT and fuel excise and the other
excise taxes like on cigarettes and alcohol etc and the council
tax even if that’s indirectly with the rent they are paying.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Seems a very inefficient way of doing things.
Yes, but its always about a lot more than just
efficiency. And its arguably more efficient to
provide the handouts to the low paid via tax
credits than having them show up at the dole
queue every few weeks to prove that they are
actively looking for work so they keep getting
their benefits when they are physically capable
of working. And society does get some real
work out of them rather than none at all if
they were not working at all receiving benefits.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And leads tothe gig economy
That happens anyway as can be seem with the
countries that don’t have a tax credit system.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
with lots of very low paid service jobs
that contribute very little to the economy.
They actually contribute a lot with much lower
costs of using the equivalent of taxis and getting
a very convenient way of getting food delivered
etc and encouraging others to do stuff like AirBnB.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
I'm not talking about essential services like health
and care, but the vast increase in delivery services
where once we'd have collected such things ourselves.
Yes, but that is better for those who use those services.
The tax credit system does encourage those who would
otherwise just veg out in front of the daytime TV or down
the pub etc to do more than just that for their income.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
And the high street being full of coffee shops.
Clearly those use use those benefit from those who would
otherwise be veg out in front of the daytime TV or down
the pub etc to do more than just that for their income
and does make those individuals more employable too.

It's essentially a variation on the work for the dole system
and works much better than that can ever do when they
normally just have those picking up rubbish and doing
some very minor stuff like painting public property etc
and doing those who do that commercially out of a job.
Peeler
2019-10-04 18:38:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 03:50:46 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the senile asshole's latest trollshit unread>

03:56 in Australia? And you've been up and trolling for almost an hour,
AGAIN!!! LOL So why can't you sleep in? Is it because of the "important"
things that go on on Usenet? Or is it your senile hormones? Or is it because
of your unbearable loneliness? Or is it because you are simply a sick
asshole? Or maybe because of all that together? <BG>
--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/rod-speed-faq.2973853/
Grik-busster®™
2019-10-04 19:21:26 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:38:54 +0200, Foreskin Peeler
<***@valid.invalid> wrote:

<fluhs Grik skata>

Take, a bottle of VALIUM, anus!

And/or have, a good FART!

LOLOK
Peeler
2019-10-04 19:39:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 12:21:26 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grik-busster®™
Take, a bottle of VALIUM, anus!
And/or have, a good FART!
LOLOK
BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Poor psychotic idiot!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
MID: <FnMUE.676068$***@usenetxs.com>
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable. To the
benefit of the employer who presumably isn't running a charity.

But not when it comes to major industries.
--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
AlexK
2019-10-05 11:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
My point is why do we subsidise an employer
indirectly, by making up wages via benefits?
Like I said, essentially because you get a better
result with the low paid person if they do work
and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.
As I said, we subsidise jobs that aren't economically viable.
Because, like I said, essentially because you get a
better result with the low paid person if they do
work and get their total income increased with tax
credits rather than having them sit around at home
all day or down the pub etc on benefits alone.

Even traditional work for the dole systems
subsidise jobs that arent economically viable
and have the real downside that quite a few
of them take work away from those who
would otherwise be paid to do that work
like picking up rubbish and doing the more
simple work like painting public property etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
To the benefit of the employer who
presumably isn't running a charity.
There are downsides with any benefit system.

It costs employers to have to sign the paperwork
of those who have to prove that they are actively
seeking work and it costs to have shiny bums
checking that those on benefits are actively
seeking work or are unable to work etc.
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
But not when it comes to major industries.
Depends on how you define major industries.

The gig economy is clearly that in spades.

So is ubeer,, airbnb,, ubereats etc etc etc.
Peeler
2019-10-05 11:06:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 21:05:42 +1000, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
Post by AlexK
Because, like I said
NO intelligent person cares what you say or don't say, senile asshole!
--
***@aol.com addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bullshitter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID: <***@4ax.com>
Fredxx
2019-10-03 23:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by AlexK
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Increasing the point where anyone pays income tax
doesn't help those already below it, ie the poorly paid.
But it does mean that lots more don't pay any income tax.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone was paid a decent wage so they
contribute towards running the country?
Quite, less immigrant labour could have the effect of pushing up wages
through increased demand on a limited labour-force.

You'll find numerous employers agreeing; from their whingeing about
increased labour costs.
Fredxx
2019-10-03 23:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
I agree, there should be no need to subsidise anyone, including those in
work.

When it comes to pay, simple supply and demand are a healthy way to push
up wages. The UK saw little need for a minimum wage until Bliar opened
the floodgates to cheap Eastern European labour.

There should be no need for a minimum wage, but shamefully now there is.
Steve Walker
2019-10-05 00:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fredxx
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Fredxx
Post by Steve Walker
There are very many hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately there are far
to many unskilled EU migrants, working for minimum wage and claiming tax
credits to top it up.
Agreed, we were told by Remainer Camoron that the UK had seen an
"explosion" of in-work benefits.
Anyone ever wondered why the rest of us should subsidise *anyone* in full
time work? Because the effect of that is to subsidise the employer.
What we need is a realistic minimum wage. Except for those in training,
etc.
I agree, there should be no need to subsidise anyone, including those in
work.
When it comes to pay, simple supply and demand are a healthy way to push
up wages. The UK saw little need for a minimum wage until Bliar opened
the floodgates to cheap Eastern European labour.
There should be no need for a minimum wage, but shamefully now there is.
I think that there always was a need. On one site I visited a number of
times just before the minimum wage came in, I ended up chatting to the
security guard each time. He was working a 60 hour week for £1.50 per hour.

Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.

SteveW
The Natural Philosopher
2019-10-05 05:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Walker
I think that there always was a need. On one site I visited a number of
times just before the minimum wage came in, I ended up chatting to the
security guard each time. He was working a 60 hour week for £1.50 per hour.
His choice.
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-10-05 10:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Natural Philosopher
Post by Steve Walker
Some employers will always exploit those who struggle to do better.
Some employers will decide the job ain't worth more, and when minimum
wage comes in the job goes.
Is that how you ran your business? Create an unnecessary job just because
it was cheap? If not cheap, you could do without?

Very efficient way of running things.

Only time it might apply is with a domestic cleaner or gardener etc. Where
the householder may decide it better to DIY if the costs go up.
--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Pamela
2019-10-01 11:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job
stolen because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen
because of freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area
stolen because of freedom of movement etc.
No need to worry about that. When the pound crashes further after a no
deal brexit, no one will want to come and work here anyway. But what you
will get is all the retired expats returning because they can't afford to
live abroad anymore. A real win win situation.
There are some such returning expats posting to these boards. They're so
self-deluded that they advocate a hard Brexit.
Steve Walker
2019-10-01 21:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Post by Terry Casey
Moreover, if there is a no deal Brexit before an
election, the Tories will hoover up virtually all the Brexit Party's
current share, meaning they'll be on course for just the sort of
majority you think can't happen.
It takes time to arrange an election.
If, in the time it takes after a no-deal Brexit, the pound
sinks without trace, large areas of the country come to a
standstill with lorries queueing for the Channel and North Sea
ports, etc., and large numbers of Brexiteers finally come to
realise just how badly they were lied to by Bonzo in
particular at the referendum, we may not see another Tory
government in this country for a very long time.
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
We had a referendum? Who won and who lost?
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Define decent living standards....
Does it include a >45 inch TV screen?
Mobile phone yearly upgrade, perhaps?
Car?
Dishwasher?
Tumble Dryer?
If someone has none of these, are they considered to have poor living
standards?
It's about not having your future stolen. You know, like your job stolen
because of freedom of movement, the chance to own a house stolen because of
freedom of movement, the opportunity to live in a nicer area stolen because of
freedom of movement etc.
As we have huge levels of net migration from the EU, you are far more
likely to be unable to find a job because someone from Eastern Europe
has taken it at a lower wage than you can live on; and far less chance
of buying a house, because the ever-increasing population has left us
short of housing, driving prices upwards.

SteveW
Ian Jackson
2019-09-30 14:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Plowman (News)
Interesting to hear on today's news of the government's preparations for a
no deal Brexit. Implying just how hard it will hit the economy. All rather
different from what the leave campaign promised before the referendum?
At least it is clear now. It never was about the living standards of the
majority. That simply doesn't matter to the hot heads of the ERG etc. Of
course it never did to that liar Farage.
Don't forget to listen to his nightly party-political LBC phone-in at
6pm.
--
Ian
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Maybe so, but I think it's an improper use of it for purposes that were
never foreseen when it was passed. It was never thought that an
opposition would turn down the chance of being elected.
You mean it *was* forecast that a Tory PM would pull every trick in the
book to thwart the rule of parliament?
--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
2019-09-30 13:31:23 UTC
Permalink
They are acting in the national interest by preventing the lunatic
fringe of the Tory party from crashing us out of the EU without a deal.
That at least is their intention. I don't trust Boris *OR* Corbyn.
Bit of a dilemma, isn't it? ;-)
--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Loading...