Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Well that's stupid, it'll mean up to 7 bank holidays between march and may, then just 1 between then and late November.
Plus Easter can be the same weekend as at George's day.
We need more bank holidays, but we need them in summer and autumn, not all crush into 2 months of spring.
I think it's a good idea but i see your point, maybe the early May Bank Holiday could be moved to July.
Having May day in July wouldn't make much sense!
It would be renamed Corbyn Day of course.
The simple answer is to have each of the four national Saints' days as bank holidays and add in the Twelfth of July... (after all, it works so well in Northern Ireland).
What's the score with Farron skirting round the gay sex issue then? Not very liberal, and with him wanting to re do the referendum, he don't seem very democratic either (In the words of David Wooding)
That's religion. It makes otherwise nice people think nasty things.
Will properly read-up closer to the time but they've grasped my attention.
Biggest reason why the voting age should NEVER be reduced - too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues. And you can add in gay sex as well - wtf - not an issue. What happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
Corbyn must be delighted with Blair's announcement today as reported on The World at One.
Although he has previously ruled out standing for Parliament again after an absence of 10 years, Mr Blair said: "I look at the British political scene at the moment and I actually almost feel motivated to go right back into it," he added. "We're just allowing ourselves to be hijacked by what is actually quite a small group of people with a strong ideology."
Mr Blair stepped down from frontline politics in 2007 but has become more politically active in recent months, setting up a think tank in London to make the case for the centre ground and for continued EU membership.
He told the BBC that the opinion polls suggested Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives were on course for a landslide victory and he "wasn't totally sure" what Labour's position was on Brexit.
He described Theresa May as "very sensible" and "a perfectly decent person" but said her policy on leaving the EU was "not reasonable" and that it was driven by the right wing of her party.
Yeah so Hillary Clinton has started giving speeches again as well. And both have done some good things in their time in politics/the limelight, and some very bad things in their time in politics, namely the Iraq War (and suiciding people if you believe in certain things, RIP Vince Foster and Dr. David Kelly). But what they really seem to fail to understand is, nobody cares what you think right now. We don't need you. You're not moving the conversation forward. I know you must feel awkward when you're alone and not speaking to cameras or large crowds, but we really just need you to be alone right now. Cheers.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe enough time has passed with Blair. But given that time is linear, it sure feels like there isn't enough time for large swathes of the electorate to think to themselves once again "What would Tony Blair say about this?"
The question for those on the centre-left in the UK is that if Blair doesn't lead the counter-attack against the far-right then who will?
I am still furious over his alliance with Bush over Iraq but who else is there on the Labour side that has got the balls to stand up for open, modern, liberal values?
Corbyn is utterly hopeless, David Miliband doesn't want to come back, Tim Farron doesn't cut the mustard at all for the Lib Dems, Chuku Umanna didn't even have the balls to run for the Labour leadership - and the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have escaped to Mayoralties.
Blair wouldn't even be in this position if Labour hadn't made such a total clusterfuck of things since 2007, Brown was awful as PM, they then chose the wrong Miliband brother [or rather the Unions chose him for them] and then, almost unbelievably, they elect Corbyn as leader!
The Tories are going to win BIG in this election and that creates a massive, massive chasm in the centre-left, probably the biggest in modern political history for someone to lead some sort of fightback about what is coming from the most right wing Tory government in many years.
Power abhors a vacum and as toxic as Blair may be in some quarters people are going to have to accept the fact that if nobody else is able to pick up the opposition ball and run with it effectively then Blair has the possibility of a return to front line politics.
Given the choice between him and Yvette Cooper, Clive Lewis or John McDonnell - then it's not much of a choice at all really, not if you are a Labour person interested in winning rather than indulging in an exercise in political purity.
Problem is would he even be voted in by the Labour Party members? I don't doubt he may do well in an election but I imagine he would not be popular with the membership.
Corbyn must be delighted with Blair's announcement today as reported on The World at One.
Although he has previously ruled out standing for Parliament again after an absence of 10 years, Mr Blair said: "I look at the British political scene at the moment and I actually almost feel motivated to go right back into it," he added. "We're just allowing ourselves to be hijacked by what is actually quite a small group of people with a strong ideology."
Mr Blair stepped down from frontline politics in 2007 but has become more politically active in recent months, setting up a think tank in London to make the case for the centre ground and for continued EU membership.
He told the BBC that the opinion polls suggested Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives were on course for a landslide victory and he "wasn't totally sure" what Labour's position was on Brexit.
He described Theresa May as "very sensible" and "a perfectly decent person" but said her policy on leaving the EU was "not reasonable" and that it was driven by the right wing of her party.
Yeah so Hillary Clinton has started giving speeches again as well. And both have done some good things in their time in politics/the limelight, and some very bad things in their time in politics, namely the Iraq War (and suiciding people if you believe in certain things, RIP Vince Foster and Dr. David Kelly). But what they really seem to fail to understand is, nobody cares what you think right now. We don't need you. You're not moving the conversation forward. I know you must feel awkward when you're alone and not speaking to cameras or large crowds, but we really just need you to be alone right now. Cheers.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe enough time has passed with Blair. But given that time is linear, it sure feels like there isn't enough time for large swathes of the electorate to think to themselves once again "What would Tony Blair say about this?"
The question for those on the centre-left in the UK is that if Blair doesn't lead the counter-attack against the far-right then who will?
I am still furious over his alliance with Bush over Iraq but who else is there on the Labour side that has got the balls to stand up for open, modern, liberal values?
Corbyn is utterly hopeless, David Miliband doesn't want to come back, Tim Farron doesn't cut the mustard at all for the Lib Dems, Chuku Umanna didn't even have the balls to run for the Labour leadership - and the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have escaped to Mayoralties.
Blair wouldn't even be in this position if Labour hadn't made such a total clusterfuck of things since 2007, Brown was awful as PM, they then chose the wrong Miliband brother [or rather the Unions chose him for them] and then, almost unbelievably, they elect Corbyn as leader!
The Tories are going to win BIG in this election and that creates a massive, massive chasm in the centre-left, probably the biggest in modern political history for someone to lead some sort of fightback about what is coming from the most right wing Tory government in many years.
Power abhors a vacum and as toxic as Blair may be in some quarters people are going to have to accept the fact that if nobody else is able to pick up the opposition ball and run with it effectively then Blair has the possibility of a return to front line politics.
Given the choice between him and Yvette Cooper, Clive Lewis or John McDonnell - then it's not much of a choice at all really, not if you are a Labour person interested in winning rather than indulging in an exercise in political purity.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Corbyn must be delighted with Blair's announcement today as reported on The World at One.
Although he has previously ruled out standing for Parliament again after an absence of 10 years, Mr Blair said: "I look at the British political scene at the moment and I actually almost feel motivated to go right back into it," he added. "We're just allowing ourselves to be hijacked by what is actually quite a small group of people with a strong ideology."
Mr Blair stepped down from frontline politics in 2007 but has become more politically active in recent months, setting up a think tank in London to make the case for the centre ground and for continued EU membership.
He told the BBC that the opinion polls suggested Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives were on course for a landslide victory and he "wasn't totally sure" what Labour's position was on Brexit.
He described Theresa May as "very sensible" and "a perfectly decent person" but said her policy on leaving the EU was "not reasonable" and that it was driven by the right wing of her party.
Yeah so Hillary Clinton has started giving speeches again as well. And both have done some good things in their time in politics/the limelight, and some very bad things in their time in politics, namely the Iraq War (and suiciding people if you believe in certain things, RIP Vince Foster and Dr. David Kelly). But what they really seem to fail to understand is, nobody cares what you think right now. We don't need you. You're not moving the conversation forward. I know you must feel awkward when you're alone and not speaking to cameras or large crowds, but we really just need you to be alone right now. Cheers.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe enough time has passed with Blair. But given that time is linear, it sure feels like there isn't enough time for large swathes of the electorate to think to themselves once again "What would Tony Blair say about this?"
The question for those on the centre-left in the UK is that if Blair doesn't lead the counter-attack against the far-right then who will?
I am still furious over his alliance with Bush over Iraq but who else is there on the Labour side that has got the balls to stand up for open, modern, liberal values?
Corbyn is utterly hopeless, David Miliband doesn't want to come back, Tim Farron doesn't cut the mustard at all for the Lib Dems, Chuku Umanna didn't even have the balls to run for the Labour leadership - and the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have escaped to Mayoralties.
Blair wouldn't even be in this position if Labour hadn't made such a total clusterfuck of things since 2007, Brown was awful as PM, they then chose the wrong Miliband brother [or rather the Unions chose him for them] and then, almost unbelievably, they elect Corbyn as leader!
The Tories are going to win BIG in this election and that creates a massive, massive chasm in the centre-left, probably the biggest in modern political history for someone to lead some sort of fightback about what is coming from the most right wing Tory government in many years.
Power abhors a vacum and as toxic as Blair may be in some quarters people are going to have to accept the fact that if nobody else is able to pick up the opposition ball and run with it effectively then Blair has the possibility of a return to front line politics.
Given the choice between him and Yvette Cooper, Clive Lewis or John McDonnell - then it's not much of a choice at all really, not if you are a Labour person interested in winning rather than indulging in an exercise in political purity.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
It's a bit much to expect Blair to do it all alone. Labour need other heavyweights like Mandelson, Prescott and Straw to step back into front line politics and support him.
Corbyn must be delighted with Blair's announcement today as reported on The World at One.
Although he has previously ruled out standing for Parliament again after an absence of 10 years, Mr Blair said: "I look at the British political scene at the moment and I actually almost feel motivated to go right back into it," he added. "We're just allowing ourselves to be hijacked by what is actually quite a small group of people with a strong ideology."
Mr Blair stepped down from frontline politics in 2007 but has become more politically active in recent months, setting up a think tank in London to make the case for the centre ground and for continued EU membership.
He told the BBC that the opinion polls suggested Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservatives were on course for a landslide victory and he "wasn't totally sure" what Labour's position was on Brexit.
He described Theresa May as "very sensible" and "a perfectly decent person" but said her policy on leaving the EU was "not reasonable" and that it was driven by the right wing of her party.
Yeah so Hillary Clinton has started giving speeches again as well. And both have done some good things in their time in politics/the limelight, and some very bad things in their time in politics, namely the Iraq War (and suiciding people if you believe in certain things, RIP Vince Foster and Dr. David Kelly). But what they really seem to fail to understand is, nobody cares what you think right now. We don't need you. You're not moving the conversation forward. I know you must feel awkward when you're alone and not speaking to cameras or large crowds, but we really just need you to be alone right now. Cheers.
Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe enough time has passed with Blair. But given that time is linear, it sure feels like there isn't enough time for large swathes of the electorate to think to themselves once again "What would Tony Blair say about this?"
The question for those on the centre-left in the UK is that if Blair doesn't lead the counter-attack against the far-right then who will?
I am still furious over his alliance with Bush over Iraq but who else is there on the Labour side that has got the balls to stand up for open, modern, liberal values?
Corbyn is utterly hopeless, David Miliband doesn't want to come back, Tim Farron doesn't cut the mustard at all for the Lib Dems, Chuku Umanna didn't even have the balls to run for the Labour leadership - and the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have escaped to Mayoralties.
Blair wouldn't even be in this position if Labour hadn't made such a total clusterfuck of things since 2007, Brown was awful as PM, they then chose the wrong Miliband brother [or rather the Unions chose him for them] and then, almost unbelievably, they elect Corbyn as leader!
The Tories are going to win BIG in this election and that creates a massive, massive chasm in the centre-left, probably the biggest in modern political history for someone to lead some sort of fightback about what is coming from the most right wing Tory government in many years.
Power abhors a vacum and as toxic as Blair may be in some quarters people are going to have to accept the fact that if nobody else is able to pick up the opposition ball and run with it effectively then Blair has the possibility of a return to front line politics.
Given the choice between him and Yvette Cooper, Clive Lewis or John McDonnell - then it's not much of a choice at all really, not if you are a Labour person interested in winning rather than indulging in an exercise in political purity.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
For this election like it or not it is May V Corbyn. Some may argue it is principles verses a lust for power at any cost, and then side with the lustful because principles cost too much and demand too many sacrifices compared with the lustful approach.
Will properly read-up closer to the time but they've grasped my attention.
Biggest reason why the voting age should NEVER be reduced - too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues. And you can add in gay sex as well - wtf - not an issue. What happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
4 more days off work - tick Pissing off the older generation in the process - double tick
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
Will properly read-up closer to the time but they've grasped my attention.
Biggest reason why the voting age should NEVER be reduced - too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues. And you can add in gay sex as well - wtf - not an issue. What happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
So, to respond to your presumptuous dig at young people (fair is fair, we've been doing it to "old people" about Brexit for the best part of a year now)...
In terms of material difference that I (and many others) will see as an individual under difference governments... an extra 4 days holiday a year is quite big one, even if it's only really superficial. My situation is probably quite typical of a decent chunk of the electorate - 22-35, don't receive any welfare, no dependents, work in private sector, already received and am paying for my education, private healthcare, private pension, mortgage etc. Essentially the point is, me and people like me are not the target of the vast majority of government policies - sure I pay for them, but I don't receive any of them directly, and quite rightly so. Changes under governments tend to happen very much around people like myself, and not to me. So again, whilst I agree the extra holiday is a bit of a nothing policy in the grand scheme of things, actually - it's probably affects my demographic more than much else does.
Regarding other 'young people'. I'd say that a great deal 16-18 year olds have plenty more reason to care about their vote than I do, especially when the policies on offer include free higher education vs £9k+ a year. Every age range has their own issues, ultimately all I can hope for is a reasonable exchange rate, stable interest rates and low inflation, and I don't think any party has proven they're particularly any better than the others at delivering those three things - however one is offering me an extra 4 days holiday for my contribution...
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
I think that's the point Blair is making, the challenge to right-wing Conservatism - which is VERY different to what was on offer under Cameron - cannot come from the far-left, it has to come from the centre as it has with Macron.
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
Will properly read-up closer to the time but they've grasped my attention.
Biggest reason why the voting age should NEVER be reduced - too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues. And you can add in gay sex as well - wtf - not an issue. What happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
So, to respond to your presumptuous dig at young people (fair is fair, we've been doing it to "old people" about Brexit for the best part of a year now)...
In terms of material difference that I (and many others) will see as an individual under difference governments... an extra 4 days holiday a year is quite big one, even if it's only really superficial. My situation is probably quite typical of a decent chunk of the electorate - 22-35, don't receive any welfare, no dependents, work in private sector, already received and am paying for my education, private healthcare, private pension, mortgage etc. Essentially the point is, me and people like me are not the target of the vast majority of government policies - sure I pay for them, but I don't receive any of them directly, and quite rightly so. Changes under governments tend to happen very much around people like myself, and not to me. So again, whilst I agree the extra holiday is a bit of a nothing policy in the grand scheme of things, actually - it's probably affects my demographic more than much else does.
Regarding other 'young people'. I'd say that a great deal 16-18 year olds have plenty more reason to care about their vote than I do, especially when the policies on offer include free higher education vs £9k+ a year. Every age range has their own issues, ultimately all I can hope for is a reasonable exchange rate, stable interest rates and low inflation, and I don't think any party has proven they're particularly any better than the others at delivering those three things - however one is offering me an extra 4 days holiday for my contribution...
You've just confirmed my fears. With all the other "important" issues that concern us (as I listed earlier) the one thing that will swing your vote is getting another 4 days off work. Does it not concern you that Corbyn cant tie his own shoe laces without permission from the Trade Unions ? He said on tv yesterday that if he got into power they would have a strategic review of the defence policy, only to be corrected a few hours later by a party spokesman that the party was fully behind Trident.
I have nothing against Corbyn & admire that he stands by his principles - bu that wont get him elected & The labour Party know that. They didn't choose him as leader, the unions did, and so if he is asked a "tricky" question he cant answer it, as he wants to say one thing, but "the party" want him to say something else.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
I think that's the point Blair is making, the challenge to right-wing Conservatism - which is VERY different to what was on offer under Cameron - cannot come from the far-left, it has to come from the centre as it has with Macron.
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
I think the time is rapidly approaching for a new centerist party akin to what Macron has done in France.
The Tories, aided by our press have done a brilliant job in making Labour, as a brand, so toxic that even those groups who traditionally and historically vote for them feel unable to. And in electing the wrong Miliband brother and then Corbyn Labour effectively and entirely foreseeably handed power to the Tories for a decade or more. Momentum, etc may be happy with having their man in place but ultimately it won't get Labour elected and therefore won't be able to carry out the left wing/progressive/loony whatever you want to call them policies it, and many voters, would like to see.
It's time for a fresh start imo and I can see the likes of Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umanna, Jess Philips, etc seeing the outcome of our own election and that across the channel as providing the impetus to do so.
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Excellent post, if you don't mind me saying. I actually don't mind Yvette Cooper, certainly compared to the others you mentioned. Not sure she'd be popular with the centre ground voters though. Who else is there though?
Cooper is OK, but she doesn't have the stature at this stage to do tbe job needed.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
I'm afraid that isn't happening!
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
I think that's the point Blair is making, the challenge to right-wing Conservatism - which is VERY different to what was on offer under Cameron - cannot come from the far-left, it has to come from the centre as it has with Macron.
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
I think the time is rapidly approaching for a new centerist party akin to what Macron has done in France.
The Tories, aided by our press have done a brilliant job in making Labour, as a brand, so toxic that even those groups who traditionally and historically vote for them feel unable to. And in electing the wrong Miliband brother and then Corbyn Labour effectively and entirely foreseeably handed power to the Tories for a decade or more. Momentum, etc may be happy with having their man in place but ultimately it won't get Labour elected and therefore won't be able to carry out the left wing/progressive/loony whatever you want to call them policies it, and many voters, would like to see.
It's time for a fresh start imo and I can see the likes of Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umanna, Jess Philips, etc seeing the outcome of our own and that across the channel as providing the impetus to do so.
Setting up a breakaway party with only a handful of MP's hasn't got a great track record in this country. They need to persuade a critical mass of the PLP to come with them to make it work. Also who's going to fund this new party if the union's decide they're not going to write the cheques?
Will properly read-up closer to the time but they've grasped my attention.
Biggest reason why the voting age should NEVER be reduced - too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues. And you can add in gay sex as well - wtf - not an issue. What happens between consenting adults is nobody else's business.
So, to respond to your presumptuous dig at young people (fair is fair, we've been doing it to "old people" about Brexit for the best part of a year now)...
In terms of material difference that I (and many others) will see as an individual under difference governments... an extra 4 days holiday a year is quite big one, even if it's only really superficial. My situation is probably quite typical of a decent chunk of the electorate - 22-35, don't receive any welfare, no dependents, work in private sector, already received and am paying for my education, private healthcare, private pension, mortgage etc. Essentially the point is, me and people like me are not the target of the vast majority of government policies - sure I pay for them, but I don't receive any of them directly, and quite rightly so. Changes under governments tend to happen very much around people like myself, and not to me. So again, whilst I agree the extra holiday is a bit of a nothing policy in the grand scheme of things, actually - it's probably affects my demographic more than much else does.
Regarding other 'young people'. I'd say that a great deal 16-18 year olds have plenty more reason to care about their vote than I do, especially when the policies on offer include free higher education vs £9k+ a year. Every age range has their own issues, ultimately all I can hope for is a reasonable exchange rate, stable interest rates and low inflation, and I don't think any party has proven they're particularly any better than the others at delivering those three things - however one is offering me an extra 4 days holiday for my contribution...
You've just confirmed my fears. With all the other "important" issues that concern us (as I listed earlier) the one thing that will swing your vote is getting another 4 days off work. Does it not concern you that Corbyn cant tie his own shoe laces without permission from the Trade Unions ? He said on tv yesterday that if he got into power they would have a strategic review of the defence policy, only to be corrected a few hours later by a party spokesman that the party was fully behind Trident.
I have nothing against Corbyn & admire that he stands by his principles - bu that wont get him elected & The labour Party know that. They didn't choose him as leader, the unions did, and so if he is asked a "tricky" question he cant answer it, as he wants to say one thing, but "the party" want him to say something else.
Sure, I've got an opinion on the shortcomings of Corbyn and Labour. All of the parties have issues depending on your standpoint. I have to confess I'm not a fan of Corbyn/Labour's stance on a number of things (including their clinging onto trade unions...) but I'm equally wary about giving May a free pass to wreak havoc in Europe, and the Tories' record with public services.
Anyway, getting side-tracked, my actual point was to make a bit of a defense at being labelled the personification of "too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues". Often people know the issues, but are coming from a totally different place - e.g. I don't work in a unionised labour market, so that my mean far less to me than others. Equally, younger people than myself stand to gain and lose an awful lot more than I do in the upcoming election - and as such I think we're obliged to give them a voice, regardless of how they want to use it.
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Skimmed through it and saw that she said "the government has reports that levels of immigration are a concern."
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Skimmed through it and saw that she said "the government has reports that levels of immigration are a concern."
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
So EU migrants are committing crime, better at it AND pay more taxes on the proceeds.
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
This is exactly my view. Reducing the amount of working days in a year doesn't seem to be the most intelligent option considering we're trying to make our economy more attractive.
Reducing working hours? That's something I could get behind, and something that - ironically - would give workers a better work/life balance, equate to more than 4 solitary days, and would minimise damage to productivity too. (If research suggesting there's only 6 productive hours in a workday is to be believed.)
Perhaps better incentives for businesses to encourage working from home? Simple tax credits for the purchase of equipment to enable employees to carry out their roles remotely? That's something that would benefit workers, give them a better work/life balance and reduce the strain on public services.
But no, apparently 4 more bank holidays is the best idea they've got. It's nothing more than a cheap token to attract cheap votes.
There are (for many - most?) currently 260 working days a year. Less, eight current bank holidays and a minimum of 20 days paid holiday. Then, there's sickies. Stats for that vary from between four to seven days. Let's say five. 260 less current days off equals 227 days. So another four bank holidays equates to just a little under 2% of everyones' working time. Employers will therefore have to increase prices by 2%, reduce employee numbers by 2%, wait for employee productivity to improve by 2% or go bust putting everyone out of work. So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
I think people will wise up to this nosnsense pretty soon. Another four bank holidays will bring us in line with what other European countries have. And as a self employed businessman, it doesn't really affect me having more bank holidays. I reckon if we didn't pay anybody and put them in chains and whipped them, we would get better value out of them! It is a worn record used to talk to workers to scare them into having less.
People will wise up that our current society and systems are all about rewarding some - very generously and screwing others year on year!
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Skimmed through it and saw that she said "the government has reports that levels of immigration are a concern."
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
The fact of the matter is, EU immigration benefits the country and non EU immigration doesn't in pure financial terms. Of course the EU has nothing to do with non EU immigration and we have more non EU immigrants. I'm sure May has immigration at the bottom of her handbag to get out when needed during the campaign. Nobody is as cheap and dirty as a Tory when it comes to campaigning, but anger speaks to the people - It is always a good idea to blame somebody!
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Skimmed through it and saw that she said "the government has reports that levels of immigration are a concern."
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
The fact of the matter is, EU immigration benefits the country and non EU immigration doesn't in pure financial terms. Of course the EU has nothing to do with non EU immigration and we have more non EU immigrants. I'm sure May has immigration at the bottom of her handbag to get out when needed during the campaign. Nobody is as cheap and dirty as a Tory when it comes to campaigning, but anger speaks to the people - It is always a good idea to blame somebody!
That piece clearly demonstrates what a lying two faced scummy poor quality politician she really is. If she can't handle a single constituency member asking her hard questions what hope has she in Brexit negotiations with experienced European politicians.
Skimmed through it and saw that she said "the government has reports that levels of immigration are a concern."
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
The fact of the matter is, EU immigration benefits the country and non EU immigration doesn't in pure financial terms. Of course the EU has nothing to do with non EU immigration and we have more non EU immigrants. I'm sure May has immigration at the bottom of her handbag to get out when needed during the campaign. Nobody is as cheap and dirty as a Tory when it comes to campaigning, but anger speaks to the people - It is always a good idea to blame somebody!
Is that true? That doesn't sound right at all, as non-EU immigration requires a purpose for their duration in the UK - generally work or study. Not to mention that if it's work related, then there will be a higher salary involved as you can't get work permits for the likes of working in a coffee shop! (See the "Barista Visa" being mentioned, as coffee shops are worried they'll be unable to find the staff if FoM with the EU isn't continued.)
I stand to be corrected though, mate. I'm just genuinely quite puzzled by it!
Comments
business.
I am still furious over his alliance with Bush over Iraq but who else is there on the Labour side that has got the balls to stand up for open, modern, liberal values?
Corbyn is utterly hopeless, David Miliband doesn't want to come back, Tim Farron doesn't cut the mustard at all for the Lib Dems, Chuku Umanna didn't even have the balls to run for the Labour leadership - and the likes of Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have escaped to Mayoralties.
Blair wouldn't even be in this position if Labour hadn't made such a total clusterfuck of things since 2007, Brown was awful as PM, they then chose the wrong Miliband brother [or rather the Unions chose him for them] and then, almost unbelievably, they elect Corbyn as leader!
The Tories are going to win BIG in this election and that creates a massive, massive chasm in the centre-left, probably the biggest in modern political history for someone to lead some sort of fightback about what is coming from the most right wing Tory government in many years.
Power abhors a vacum and as toxic as Blair may be in some quarters people are going to have to accept the fact that if nobody else is able to pick up the opposition ball and run with it effectively then Blair has the possibility of a return to front line politics.
Given the choice between him and Yvette Cooper, Clive Lewis or John McDonnell - then it's not much of a choice at all really, not if you are a Labour person interested in winning rather than indulging in an exercise in political purity.
I am talking here about someone who can come in and hit the ground running and give May a genuine challenge immediately.
Some may argue it is principles verses a lust for power at any cost, and then side with the lustful because principles cost too much and demand too many sacrifices compared with the lustful approach.
Pissing off the older generation in the process - double tick
There has been a pretty brutal assessment of the state of the French Socialist party from its leadership this morning after its candidate, Benoît Hamon, polled just 6%. "We are in a phase of decomposition, demolition, deconstruction," said Valls. "We didn't do the work - intellectual, ideological and political - on what the left is, and we paid the price."
And that is where the UK left is today. Le Pen raised her vote by 5% over five years - Macron bailed from the Socialist Party 12 months ago and travelled from 0 to 24% in a year.
Le Pen is tipped to unify the country behind Macron and he will poll perhaps 60% in the second round. In contrast, the combined total of Lib Dems and Labour is now at 36% as opposed to Conservative + UKIP = 55%.
Take a look at the evolution of French politics - perhaps that shows a way forward?
In terms of material difference that I (and many others) will see as an individual under difference governments... an extra 4 days holiday a year is quite big one, even if it's only really superficial. My situation is probably quite typical of a decent chunk of the electorate - 22-35, don't receive any welfare, no dependents, work in private sector, already received and am paying for my education, private healthcare, private pension, mortgage etc. Essentially the point is, me and people like me are not the target of the vast majority of government policies - sure I pay for them, but I don't receive any of them directly, and quite rightly so. Changes under governments tend to happen very much around people like myself, and not to me. So again, whilst I agree the extra holiday is a bit of a nothing policy in the grand scheme of things, actually - it's probably affects my demographic more than much else does.
Regarding other 'young people'. I'd say that a great deal 16-18 year olds have plenty more reason to care about their vote than I do, especially when the policies on offer include free higher education vs £9k+ a year. Every age range has their own issues, ultimately all I can hope for is a reasonable exchange rate, stable interest rates and low inflation, and I don't think any party has proven they're particularly any better than the others at delivering those three things - however one is offering me an extra 4 days holiday for my contribution...
The point is can Blair - or someone else - do that from a new party or do they need the Labour Party to do it as a vehicle, or perhaps via the Lib Dems?
I think the key thing to remember is that you really don't need the same sort of formal party structures that you did in the past because of the way that technology allows you to now organise on a national level - this was unthinkable even 20 years ago.
The easiest way to do it would be through the Labour Party - but the left wing nutters have taken over the place and they won't go easily, especially not for Blair.
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/my-brawl-over-brexit-with-prime-minister-theresa-may-1-4807899?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social_Icon&utm_campaign=in_article_social_icons
I have nothing against Corbyn & admire that he stands by his principles - bu that wont get him elected & The labour Party know that. They didn't choose him as leader, the unions did, and so if he is asked a "tricky" question he cant answer it, as he wants to say one thing, but "the party" want him to say something else.
The Tories, aided by our press have done a brilliant job in making Labour, as a brand, so toxic that even those groups who traditionally and historically vote for them feel unable to. And in electing the wrong Miliband brother and then Corbyn Labour effectively and entirely foreseeably handed power to the Tories for a decade or more. Momentum, etc may be happy with having their man in place but ultimately it won't get Labour elected and therefore won't be able to carry out the left wing/progressive/loony whatever you want to call them policies it, and many voters, would like to see.
It's time for a fresh start imo and I can see the likes of Dan Jarvis, Chukka Umanna, Jess Philips, etc seeing the outcome of our own election and that across the channel as providing the impetus to do so.
Setting up a breakaway party with only a handful of MP's hasn't got a great track record in this country. They need to persuade a critical mass of the PLP to come with them to make it work. Also who's going to fund this new party if the union's decide they're not going to write the cheques?
Anyway, getting side-tracked, my actual point was to make a bit of a defense at being labelled the personification of "too many youngsters having no idea of the real issues". Often people know the issues, but are coming from a totally different place - e.g. I don't work in a unionised labour market, so that my mean far less to me than others. Equally, younger people than myself stand to gain and lose an awful lot more than I do in the upcoming election - and as such I think we're obliged to give them a voice, regardless of how they want to use it.
What reports? Which government department has produced this report where immigration is a concern? Because the facts comprehensively show that on every metric whether it be crime, skills, productivity, or taxes paid, EU migrants are either on par with UK citizens or excelling.
So unless the Daily Mail and the Sun have become government departments, what good reason do they have to make this kind of statement, unless what she really meant to say was "Reports show that xenophobia is in vogue and we really want to capitalise on this in order to win cheap votes and scapegoat foreigners who have absolutely nothing to do with our country's woes, helping deflect attention away from us slashing public services and the NHS."
So, (apart from a free lunch) there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what Corbyn and his istas don't seem to either understand and/or care about.
Reducing working hours? That's something I could get behind, and something that - ironically - would give workers a better work/life balance, equate to more than 4 solitary days, and would minimise damage to productivity too. (If research suggesting there's only 6 productive hours in a workday is to be believed.)
Perhaps better incentives for businesses to encourage working from home? Simple tax credits for the purchase of equipment to enable employees to carry out their roles remotely? That's something that would benefit workers, give them a better work/life balance and reduce the strain on public services.
But no, apparently 4 more bank holidays is the best idea they've got. It's nothing more than a cheap token to attract cheap votes.
People will wise up that our current society and systems are all about rewarding some - very generously and screwing others year on year!
I stand to be corrected though, mate. I'm just genuinely quite puzzled by it!