"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.

And the reality of (basic maths) is that,

1) the alternative of putting up taxes on the rich collects such a tiny
amount of money it's hardly worth doing
and
2) costs cutting by government is bound to have a greater effect on the
worst off members of society because, making use of the things that
government provides, is a much larger part of a poor person's life than that
of a rich person.

If you disagree on the fundamentals of someone's policy you have to have a
convincing argument that that policy is wrong. Calling them names because
of the unavoidable consequences of that, well founded [1], policy is not a
vote winner in my book.

tim

[1] it must be well founded because so far you haven't put up an argument
against it. You seem to think that name calling suffices here. It doesn't

FTAOD "you" in the above refers to no person in particular here

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

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"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

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.

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

tim

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.


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?


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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"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

On 09/11/2016 08:17, tim... wrote:

"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

It already has and we haven't left yet.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/2016 08:17, tim... wrote:

"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

It already has and we haven't left yet.

I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not caused by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the situation,
rather than their knuckling down and doing what is "best" for the UK under
the circumstances. (They will, no doubt, argue that they are, I will argue
that they aren't - they are trying to fight a war that, I believe they
cannot win and making Britain worse off whilst they fight it.)

FTAOD, I fully expected that such Remoaning would happen and that it would
affect the economy badly (and if I tried hard enough I could find you a post
that I made before the referendum that sad as much.)

tim

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


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

because it's what the people voted for

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.

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



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


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

because it's what the people voted for

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.

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



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


Guy Gorton

On 08/11/2016 12:07, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 11:35:06 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


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

because it's what the people voted for

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.

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



Genuine question: who do you think it is good for?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anyone who values for themslves and for future generations the British
(or English) way of life. That is worth some economic pain.


And what exactly is the British "way of life"? Xenophobia, Homophobia,
idolatory of whatever our American masters dictate?







--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.