"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 07/11/2016 12:14, tim... wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...


Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe


mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty
much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have
had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision
not to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile
campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity
[Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/



But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by
phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your
claims otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make
because they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making
them because they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of
the
country, it's the right thing to do - and in the current state of the
country's finances doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what
is socially the right thing to do.


So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being

because it's what the people voted for


But you've just said that the economy trumps that.

no I didn't

I said that in the case of government spending, getting the Economy right
trumps doing the "right thing" on Welfare.

about the worst possible thing you could do for the economy.

There are many arguments that that isn't the case in the longer term.
That is exactly the reason why some of us voted to leave.

Are there?

Many believe that there are

it will take 20 years to find out :-)

Just because it is bad for you (and your like) doesn't make it bad for
everyone.



And just what is my like?

If the economy gets shafted it won't be just me that is affected.

But the argument is that the end result of leaving wont shaft the Economy

That it will be in turmoil because there are a lot of people in positions of
"power" who will be personally affected who shout louder (and whose voices
are given greater credence by "the markets") doesn't change that.

This is the fault of them being noisy whiners, not the effect of leaving.

(and FTAOD, I expect them to continue whining, and having an adverse effect
on the economy long after the leave process has completed.)

tim