General Election 8th June

[antrin]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

I don't see the SNP neglecting the day-to-day business of governing Scotland that's just a vapid soundbite. The % of people wanting a referendum has been fairly volatile, I've seen polls where the majority has been for a second one (just after the Brexit vote) and I can't remember ever seeing those in favour being significantly below the 45% who voted YES in 2014 - it's nowhere near as clear cut as you're suggesting despite the loud (I'd say hysterical) protestations of Ruth Dugdale (sic).

Because north of the border the tactics of the Lib-Dems and Labour in particular don't seem to be about maximizing the votes for their parties and they seem happy to acquiesce in their supporters voting for what (if re-elected) will be the most right-wing government in Europe one that is certainly further from their economic and social beliefs than the SNP. But I'm sure you knew that!

Well... you asked for an explanation and I offered the most logical, I believe. 

From what I've seen and heard in recent months, the stats in many areas that should be better governed are poor, police, education etc  - and that has even been acknowledged by the SNP.  So they really need to be doing a better job of pretending they know how to govern, rather than chase every twist and turn of indyref umpteen, IMHO.

As to your second para, I disagree.  I think they believe their party and their politics are the best way in which to govern - so they are trying to maximise their votes as best they know how. 

And aye, I have already voted against the most right wing govt in Europe.  It will be a wasted vote in my constituency, but I won't be seeking a referendum on independence for my constituency, because of that.

[Bud the Baker]

 

6 minutes ago, antrin said:

Well... you asked for an explanation and I offered the most logical, I believe. 

From what I've seen and heard in recent months, the stats in many areas that should be better governed are poor, police, education etc  - and that has even been acknowledged by the SNP.  So they really need to be doing a better job of pretending they know how to govern, rather than chase every twist and turn of indyref umpteen, IMHO.

As to your second para, I disagree.  I think they believe their party and their politics are the best way in which to govern - so they are trying to maximise their votes as best they know how. 

And aye, I have already voted against the most right wing govt in Europe.  It will be a wasted vote in my constituency, but I won't be seeking a referendum on independence for my constituency, because of that.

We don't live in a bubble up here and even altho' it's a Westminster election it's quite right that the SNP are challenged on their record in government which is far from perfect but life and government goes on, and us Nats are less obsessed by independence than the other three parties who have had little else to say in this election.

******************

Freedom for Tooting Chingford!

 

 

[antrin]

I know you don't live in a bubble up there - nor do I down here.

 

I spent three weeks of May in Scotland.  I am about to return for another fortnight of June...  I DO care, you know...

[stlucifer]

2 minutes ago, antrin said:

I know you don't live in a bubble up there - nor do I down here.

 

I spent three weeks of May in Scotland.  I am about to return for another fortnight of June...  I DO care, you know...

Feck me. Yesterday we had to spend one day with May in Scotland and that was one day too many!

[melmac]

Was it Paul Mack who was caught in a wardrobe whilst someone was banging his burd, or something to that effect?

[oaksoft]

On 05/06/2017 at 7:07 AM, RickMcD said:

Think you make some fair points and can't disagree with most of your figures. However, you say you feed your entire family on about £200 per month. Really? Even if you have what used to be called a gentleman's family (wife and two weans) you must be pretty frugal. If you only eat spam and chips every day, it would be difficult enough. For some reason I wouldn't be surprised if you're vegetarian and maybe that would make it affordable. A decent takeaway for a family of four, costing say £30, would knock a hole in your budget. Do you allow for treats now and again? I'm not saying you've lied about your expenditure but it points to austerity gone mad. Vegetarians do apparently contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions so maybe I'm wrong about you being vegetarian. You wouldn't want to fart more than we meat eaters. Would you?

Rick, just as an aside, I was reading the Guardian (today's I think) and some woman from Easterhouse was on it complaining because her son reaches 16 today and their benefits are going to be cut. She then goes on to say that to feed a family of four she spends a minimum of £160 PER WEEK.

£160 per week??? We have people in this country in real need and they can't get it because of people like this. This SHOULD make people angry. Very angry. What bothers me is that it won't. Lefties will deflect and start talking about tax avoidance and stuff like that but the reality is we are talking about the welfare budget and we should not be tolerating this sort of thing. It doesn't matter how much tax avoidance we clamp down on. We should never IMO be paying this level of benefits to anyone.

Just though I'd post that given our conversation yesterday.

[FTOF]

2 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

I don't see the SNP neglecting the day-to-day business of governing Scotland that's just a vapid soundbite.

It is indeed.

It's very easy to make bombastic howls from the side lines when you've got no chance of ever running the country outright, and when there's no chance of being called out on your either non-existent or cloud cuckoo land policies.

The SNP are far from perfect, but I shudder to think what would happen if any other party got such a huge majority, and had to run the country.

[Seaside Nipper]

Indeed.

She must be doing something behind the scenes to justify her role in the shadow cabinet.

More of a shadow puppet that someone forgot to attach the strings.

There are varying levels of incompetence in all walks of life, but as far as politics go, this lady is an elite.

Yup, she is beyond belief. It only astonishes me more that she has the front and arrogance to continue, an utter pan head.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Was it Paul Mack who was caught in a wardrobe whilst someone was banging his burd, or something to that effect?

That rings a bell... probably rings his as well!
It's still nothing compared to the pish on his blog though.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yup, she is beyond belief. It only astonishes me more that she has the front and arrogance to continue, an utter pan head.

Seems she's pulled out of a debate tonight due to 'ill health'
Panheaditis?

[antrin]

15 hours ago, FTOF said:

It's  very easy to make bombastic howls from the side lines when you've got no chance of ever running the country outright, and when there's no chance of being called out on your either non-existent or cloud cuckoo land policies.

I'm sure there will be those who would suggest THAT is precisely the situation into which Sturgeon has fallen.  Hence the palpable problems with education, the polis and health.

the sidelines are a bit like the terraces...

it's so easy to play the game until you're actually IN it.

Edited June 7, 2017 by antrin

[oaksoft]

On 04/06/2017 at 5:04 PM, renfrew said:

So somebody on £1200 a month.

Rent £600

Rates  £100

Elec/Gas    £100

Travel to work £100

Season ticket for saints £25 

Insurance/ TV licenced  £25

Lavvy Paper/ soap/ cleaning stuff £20

Clothes/household goods  £50

Anything else before food ?

 

Didnt see this response so I will answer it now. This is for a single person.

Straight off the bat if you cant afford a £600 flat then dont get one.

Easy enough to get something for £450. Alternatively get a room in a shared house for £300.

Rates? You mean council tax? Not sure if you could get CTR but assume not. Did you include the single person rebate?

You want to pay £600 a month on a flat and still not be smart enough to find something with no commute? No excuse for that.

Insurance for what?

TV licence? Seriously?

£20 a month on toilet roll, a bar of soap and some dettol? You are joking right?

£50 a month on clothes? This is getting ridiculous now.

This person has no idea about how to budget, how to prioritise or how to be realistic.

I have been in this situation. TBH I have been in worse, well before minimum wages were even thought of. More than once. I know how to survive and and get out of it and I am telling you that the sort of spending you are describing here is utterly ridiculous.

Edited June 7, 2017 by oaksoft

[RickMcD]

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Rick, just as an aside, I was reading the Guardian (today's I think) and some woman from Easterhouse was on it complaining because her son reaches 16 today and their benefits are going to be cut. She then goes on to say that to feed a family of four she spends a minimum of £160 PER WEEK.

£160 per week??? We have people in this country in real need and they can't get it because of people like this. This SHOULD make people angry. Very angry. What bothers me is that it won't. Lefties will deflect and start talking about tax avoidance and stuff like that but the reality is we are talking about the welfare budget and we should not be tolerating this sort of thing. It doesn't matter how much tax avoidance we clamp down on. We should never IMO be paying this level of benefits to anyone.

Just though I'd post that given our conversation yesterday.

£160 a week is just ridiculous. I thought in your original post you were implying you spent no more than £200 a month come hell or high water.

The cost of the welfare state is horrendous and one day a UK government will have to bite the bullet. A left of centre party never will, and we don't really have a centrist party that could form a government. Can't see a solution.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

£160 a week is just ridiculous. I thought in your original post you were implying you spent no more than £200 a month come hell or high water.
The cost of the welfare state is horrendous and one day a UK government will have to bite the bullet. A left of centre party never will, and we don't really have a centrist party that could form a government. Can't see a solution.

Rick, the largest cost is related to pensions.
Pensioners vote in large numbers, so no party wants to be seen to be penalising them.

[antrin]

16 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Rick, just as an aside, I was reading the Guardian (today's I think) and some woman from Easterhouse was on it complaining because her son reaches 16 today and their benefits are going to be cut. She then goes on to say that to feed a family of four she spends a minimum of £160 PER WEEK.

£160 per week??? We have people in this country in real need and they can't get it because of people like this. This SHOULD make people angry. Very angry. What bothers me is that it won't. Lefties will deflect and start talking about tax avoidance and stuff like that but the reality is we are talking about the welfare budget and we should not be tolerating this sort of thing. It doesn't matter how much tax avoidance we clamp down on. We should never IMO be paying this level of benefits to anyone.

Just though I'd post that given our conversation yesterday.

If you are going to quote, please do so correctly.

the woman actually said that the weekly shop costs about £160.00.

not just food.

reading the living situation...

....which I now offer as a link so we can all judge personally rather than rely on selective misquotes:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/voices-and-votes-glasgow-east-easterhouse-what-point-voting-nothing-change

i would suggest that weekly shop would include power cards for meters on an expensive tariff, cleaning and health products and all the other things one might buy in "a weekly shop".

£40.00 per person per week to survive is not the lap of luxury.

i wouldn't want her/their lives.

(she appears to be doing her best to cope and help others, but carry on slagging her, by all means.)

 

[RickMcD]

9 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Rick, the largest cost is related to pensions.
Pensioners vote in large numbers, so no party wants to be seen to be penalising them.

I know that. It's almost untouchable. Successive governments might tinker a little but it's difficult to envisage any major changes. The NHS is a massive problem. Eventually someone has to bite the bullet but in the hypothetical case that a tory government did so, they would be out at the next election and the new government (Labour if they get rid of Corbynesque characters) would start all over again. A vicious circle. Eventually if the total cost of our welfare state can't be somehow reduced we are looking at a clusterf**k of gigantic proportions.

[antrin]

7 minutes ago, RickMcD said:

I know that. It's almost untouchable. Successive governments might tinker a little but it's difficult to envisage any major changes. The NHS is a massive problem. Eventually someone has to bite the bullet but in the hypothetical case that a tory government did so, they would be out at the next election and the new government (Labour if they get rid of Corbynesque characters) would start all over again. A vicious circle. Eventually if the total cost of our welfare state can't be somehow reduced we are looking at a clusterf**k of gigantic proportions.

The circle could be rendered less vicious if the companies who extract their profits from our society actually paid taxes that helped pay for society's infrastructures that it uses.

such as roads, transport, education, health police and all the other services necessary for civilisation.

it's not the pensioners nor the poor people that governments need to confront, but the companies leaching wealth out of our societies.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, RickMcD said:

£160 a week is just ridiculous. I thought in your original post you were implying you spent no more than £200 a month come hell or high water.

The cost of the welfare state is horrendous and one day a UK government will have to bite the bullet. A left of centre party never will, and we don't really have a centrist party that could form a government. Can't see a solution.

I personally spend around £200 per month and that feeds my family. That includes toiletries just in case antrin decides to pipe up.

Edited June 7, 2017 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

50 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Rick, the largest cost is related to pensions.
Pensioners vote in large numbers, so no party wants to be seen to be penalising them.

 

22 minutes ago, antrin said:

The circle could be rendered less vicious if the companies who extract their profits from our society actually paid taxes that helped pay for society's infrastructures that it uses.

such as roads, transport, education, health police and all the other services necessary for civilisation.

it's not the pensioners nor the poor people that governments need to confront, but the companies leaching wealth out of our societies.

Left wing whataboutery.

[whydowebother]

Diane Abbot 'Removed from duties' immediate effect.

'ill health' cited

[oaksoft]

3 minutes ago, whydowebother said:

Diane Abbot 'Removed from duties' immediate effect.

'ill health' cited

She absolutely is ill and I think she has been ill for some time.

She has been slurring words during interviews for ages.

I dont know if this is alcohol or a disease but it has been obvious to me for a while that this woman is ill.

I have felt really uncomfortable with people laughing at her recent performances. Are people really so stupid that they cant see something is wrong with her or are they so callous that they know she is ill but believe it is hilarious to laugh anyway?

Edited June 7, 2017 by oaksoft

[Bud the Baker]

Congrats to the terrorists, if TM's Tories win the election then you have won this round of the war.

Quote

Theresa May says she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling terror suspects.

She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects.

The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953.

********************

........and I see whydowebother has pipped me at the post but Diane Abbott is to step down as Shadow Home Secretary as she is unwell.

[whydowebother]

Congrats to the terrorists, if TM's Tories win the election then you have won this round of the war.

Theresa May says she will change human rights laws if they "get in the way" of tackling terror suspects.
She said she wants to do more to restrict the freedom of those posing a threat and to deport foreign suspects.
The UK could seek opt-outs from the European Convention on Human Rights, which it has abided by since 1953.

********************
........and I see whydowebother has pipped me at the post but Diane Abbott is to step down as Shadow Home Secretary as she is unwell.

The 'ill health' may actually be the explanation as to her car crash interviews actually and if that is the case, that's a shame.

If however it transpires it's a cover story for incompetence, then the ridicule received will be merited.

All the same, I hope she is well soon.

[oaksoft]

41 minutes ago, antrin said:

If you are going to quote, please do so correctly.

the woman actually said that the weekly shop costs about £160.00.

not just food.

reading the living situation...

....which I now offer as a link so we can all judge personally rather than rely on selective misquotes:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/voices-and-votes-glasgow-east-easterhouse-what-point-voting-nothing-change

i would suggest that weekly shop would include power cards for meters on an expensive tariff, cleaning and health products and all the other things one might buy in "a weekly shop".

£40.00 per person per week to survive is not the lap of luxury.

i wouldn't want her/their lives.

(she appears to be doing her best to cope and help others, but carry on slagging her, by all means.)

 

£40 a week to live on?

She is splurging £160 a week. Where are you getting £40 a week from? Where are you getting this power card story from? Nobody mentioned that. You have just made that up.

Either way there is no excuse for paying enough welfare that someone can splurge the equivalent of £650 a week on food, soap, bleach and toilet roll. Nobody should be supporting that sort of profligacy. You also failed to realise she is whining that this is not enough!

[Tommy]

9 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Didnt see this response so I will answer it now. This is for a single person.

Straight off the bat if you cant afford a £600 flat then dont get one.

Easy enough to get something for £450. Alternatively get a room in a shared house for £300.

Rates? You mean council tax? Not sure if you could get CTR but assume not. Did you include the single person rebate?

You want to pay £600 a month on a flat and still not be smart enough to find something with no commute? No excuse for that.

Insurance for what?

TV licence? Seriously?

£20 a month on toilet roll, a bar of soap and some dettol? You are joking right?

£50 a month on clothes? This is getting ridiculous now.

This person has no idea about how to budget, how to prioritise or how to be realistic.

I have been in this situation. TBH I have been in worse, well before minimum wages were even thought of. More than once. I know how to survive and and get out of it and I am telling you that the sort of spending you are describing here is utterly ridiculous.

Thank for keeping me right. I don't know what I would have done without your knowledge