Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Martin
I understand where your coming from, but im afraid it's not for me
They made there choice on women only shortlists, and i'v therefore made mine
and there will be more from me closer to the election
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i rather think you have your teeth into this one keith, will alienate your former colleagues in the party though.
with the boundary changes not going ahead the likelihood is that clair will be our next honourable member.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Employers don't need to employ, or train the young,
The labour party flooded the employment market with cheep immigrant labour.
Destabilising wages
Its labour, that's responsible for the mass unemployment in the UK
And the forcing down of the wages of the poor.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i think that red ed put his hand up to that today making it clear they had got it wrong, too late now though.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
I saw Clair's speech too and I was very impressed, her passion for her local areas really came to the fore, it's good to see a locally born,educated young lady doing so well and I wish her the very best of British!!!
I saw a programme on TV only very recently about food banks, It may have been panorama or despatches or something of that ilk. I was completely shocked by it. I saw that the need for food banks is crucial in todays financial climate as so many families simply can't afford to buy food and that's the size of it, 'Breadline Britian'
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
Good to see Clair getting into her stride, and her local upbring puts her in good stead to understand local issus,I understand Keith and quite a few were not in favor of the all women short lists, but I think Clair will make us a good MP and she will i'm sure make her mark in the coming months ahead.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
Labour voter bull s... haword,
Eddy boy was celebrating the expansion of the EU 3 months ago.
If they where sorry they would be planning for the reputation of, there supposed mistakes
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i did post on this but it disappeared??/
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the thread disappeared for a while keith, just a glitch your post should still be there.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Here IS a BIG idea...
"The government's disastrous handling of the competition for the west coast main line franchise (Virgin back on track in rail shambles, 4 October) is the latest in a long line of coalition cock-ups - but it also highlights all that is wrong with the UK's privatised rail system.
Since privatisation in the 1990s, the cost of train travel in the UK has risen by 17% in real terms - compared with a 7% drop in the cost of motoring. Fares are now some of the highest in Europe and the government's plan for a further 6.2% increase from January 2013 is the last straw for many commuters in my constituency.
Thanks to higher interest payments to keep debts off the government balance sheet, and costs arising from fragmentation and the complex network of subcontractors, the cost to the public purse of running the railways has risen by 2 to 3 times since privatisation. Now taxpayers are told we must cough up £40m in compensation to the four west coast bidders.
What rail passengers want most of all is stability and value for money - not one unaccountable company snatching control from another with promises they may never deliver. So, instead of tinkering round the edges of a system that is not fit for purpose, the Greens are calling for an end to private ownership. Bringing the railways back into public hands could save over £1bn a year of taxpayers' money - some of which could be spent on reducing fares. Britain was once world famous for its trail blazing and hugely successful railways. But unless they are returned to public ownership, we will struggle on with a fragmented, complex and often dysfunctional system that rips off passengers, harms the economy and fails the environment.
Caroline Lucas
MP for Brighton Pavilion, Green party"
From...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/04/rail-franchise-row-flawed-processIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I no longer judge people by who they vote for. This playground politics, from all parties, of spitting dummies at each other, from the very top to the very bottom, is not funny anymore, pure nonsense and puerile.
I know Claire and I know Charlie, they both show concerns on what is now happening to our communities and are both trying to do something about turning these problems around.
Of course they won't always agree on which direction they will tackle these problems on and they will have different reasons for their actions but the bottom line is that, if they can work together and concentrate on fixing the problems without resorting to playground politics then we will all benefit.
PhillipP
"She failed to mention Charlie's idea for the people's port"
Charlie himself failed to mention his Idea for the people's port, in his election run up and your other remarks are equally disingenuous. What do you want her to do, go on stage and praise this government?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're right gary, charlie was against any sell off prior to the general election.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - how could he mention it? May I remind you that it was Neil Wiggins project and he raised the matter with Charlie not long before the election (and Prosser incidentally). He did not have a chance to evaluate it properly until after the election leading to his giving it his full support as the best option for both Dover and the Port.
No excuse now for 'whatshername' as the PPT is an established and realistic option for the Port that has an opportunity to benefit town and port securing it for the future of Dover. Her failure is remarkable and short sighted.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Gwynn Prosser and Clair Hawkins are their names.
Audere est facere.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Gary you said this:
" This playground politics, from all parties, of spitting dummies at each other, from the very top to the very bottom, is not funny anymore, pure nonsense and puerile. "
You then said this:
"What do you want her to do, go on stage and praise this government?"
Can you see the gulf between the first statement and the second?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
It must be possible for one Party to state it's own position without reference to another Party, and be involved in meaningful debate without carping.
Picking holes in somebody's proposition is not advancing the cause of the common good.
Better, let he who states all things clearly and without equivocation cast the first aspersion.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
BarryW.
When I confronted Charlie about privatizing the port he replied that he would continue with Gwynns fight against it being privatized.
There would have been nothing wrong with Charlie giving us the outline in principal of Neil's Project. I.E the truth?
Had he done that from the start, I believe he and the PP would have had a better start.
PhillipP.
I can see that I dropped to your level but that won't happen again.
Tom.#36
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
From...
Realising the Potential of GB Rail: Final Independent Report of the Rail Value for Money Study - Main Report
"21.4 Renationalisation
A number of arguments have been put forward to support renationalisation.
First, the costs of the rail industry have increased since privatisation. It is argued by some that this
shows that privatisation has not achieved its overarching objective of cost efficiency through
competition.
Second, Government still provides large subsidies to the rail industry, with some of this money
being paid to shareholders in dividends, which is therefore lost to the industry.
Third, it is argued that renationalisation would create a simpler structure with a unified, vertically-
integrated organisation with top-down goals and common objectives. This could reduce the
duplication of functions across the industry and allow economies of scale/scope to be maximised.
There could also be a reduction in transaction, legal and consultancy costs, as there would not be
the same level of external procurement and matters such as discussions with the trade unions
could be dealt with nationally rather than by many separate companies.
Finally, owing to the nature of the rail industry, ongoing Government involvement is needed to
regulate the private monopolies within the industry. This means it is unlikely that the industry will
ever run as an effective privatised industry..."
Obviously the report goes on to recommend less and less involvement of Government as the best way forward and this is what the present mob have seized upon.
I think this report was co-authored by PWC. Who it was that struck the deal to payout £40 mi££ion to the bidders remains a mystery.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
....."PhillipP.
I can see that I dropped to your level but that won't happen again."
Gary your'll have to explain that last remark. Exactly what level do you talk about? Have I said something unttoward?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
GaryC - that is exactly what he did. As I said, this is about definitions. The PPT is about mutualising and bringing it into local ownership.
Charlie has played a blinder in delaying and hopefully preventing the DHB highest bidder plan.
The Trust port status does nothing for the town at all. This is about the bigger picture and making the port benefit Dover.