The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Cowboy]

Are you sure? Additionally never appeared you have added it.


Speaking in defence of the major pub chains, the former MP said: “In areas of Nottingham, Leicester, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham the increase in the Muslim population who don’t drink leads to many pub closures. It is exceptionally hard for a publican who has put 10 years of his life into trying to build up a business to accept the inevitability of these tides of history.”

No it doesn't appear.

Ok, you win. I am done with this.

 

[Milk]

Always look for the vested interest.

VOTE LOONY - we don't have an agenda (actually, I am not sure if we've written our mankifesto yet)

Ha - I lie. Tis work in progress:

Policy One:

We will reduce the national debt by selling the castles back to the French. (Buyer dismantles)

That's it to date

 

[rascal]

I quite agree, but I can guarantee if any party proposed that, there would be huge protests from those fast approaching that age. All politicians know that older people vote a lot more than younger people. Doing what's right for the politician generally trumps doing what's right for the country.

This is it. Young people need to get out and vote, what's being voted on now only benefits the oldest who will likely be kaput within a decade but leaving the young to face the consequences.

 

[roydo]

Why would you do that then? They only pay when they earn a proper wage, so let them take care of their own finances.

Was being semi serious mate!

 

[rascal]

I'm not sure what people expect though really? We had the biggest economic crash since the Great Depression. Is it realistic to expect things to be all rosy under that set of circumstances?

I'd suggest penalising those who have the means to give more rather than those with nothing to give would be a good start.

 

[OneTrueLegend]

I'll give you the smoking ban - but conversely that made for a much more family orientated pub. Although I smoked 30 a day for 26 years, it is a real pleasure to be in smoke free atmospheres.

There is a lot more binge drinking these days among the younger generation. Us oldies prefer to have our tipple at home every night.

The only time I go to a pub is for a meeting or if I am holiday but I do note a massive increase in the quality of food now and that is what attracts me to a pub not the beer

In my area and when I travel around the country, there seems to be 3 types of pubs;

• Those that do food
• Those with every football, rugby and every other sport on the TV
  
• Old man boozers

And I think over the next 20 years the old man boozers will vanish and we will just have pubs that do food and sports pubs. Things change, I remember reading that 200 years ago there were more coffee shops than pubs in the uk and we may be heading that way again. As the Red Lions and Kings Head's of this world close, they seem to be replaced with a Costa or a Starbucks

 

[The Cowboy]

I'd suggest penalising those who have the means to give more rather than those with nothing to give would be a good start.

Well that is certainly happening with the high-earner child benefit charge.

 

[hullefc]

Whilst not in the real world but the pampered and protected bubble world of the palace of westminster den of iniquity.

An initiative to save the taxpayer money by merging the catering services for the House of Commons and House of Lords was rejected by peers because they feared the quality of champagne would suffer as a result.

The Observer reports that Sir Malcolm Jack, who was clerk of the Commons between 2006 and 2011, made the claim as he gave evidence to a committee looking at how government should be run last week.

The Lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.

• Sir Malcolm Jack

It is reported that the news was met with gasps by those in attendance and Jack Straw, who was leading the committee, said in astonishment: “Did you make that up? Is that true?” to which Jack replied: “Yes, it is true.”

The House of Lords has an annual catering budget of £1.3m and is reported to have bought in 17,000 bottles of bubbly since David Cameron’s government took office in 2010.

While people starve this government does nothing to stop themselves from having the indulgence of good champagne. I have to pay for my own food when at work. The £1.3 million would be better donated to foodbanks.

I wonder when the Tory fundamentalist Matt Hancock, the business minister "foodbanks are on the rise because more people know about them" will say about this. "More champagne is now drunk in the house of lords because more of them know it is free".

What a bunch of self deluded cretins that only worry about the quality of free champagne.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree with much of what you have said, my main gripe is that the cuts have not been fair, poor people have been made worse off, while rich people have been unaffected or in some cases are better off now than they have ever been.

For example in 2014 the average CEO of a british company earns 143 times more than his/ her average worker (not lowest paid!)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ritains-fat-cat-pay-gap-hits-new-heights.html

For sure, I won't dispute that executive pay is huge these days and at crazy levels, I'm just not sure that this is down to politicians at all. We have to accept that it's a globalized economy these days, and I think it's the scale of the operations of many a multi-national that has seen their wages go up so rapidly. That global market has also contributed hugely to keeping wages down. These days it isn't just manufacturing jobs that are exported but knowledge jobs too.

That's typified the recovery (such as there's been one), with jobs tending to have been maintained, but possibly on lower pay or reduced hours.

Of course, we can argue whether that's good or bad, and indeed the state could try and tax the super rich even more or you could argue that more be done to try and encourage on-shoring jobs in Britain, but I don't think it's fair to say that the state created the divide in the first place. The situation is way beyond what a state can control imo. The best they can do is react.

From 2013 the NHS has over 14 major services privitised and being run for a profit, taking money from public funding and putting it into the hands of people like Virgin and Care UK, the more this happens, the more likely it is that we lose the NHS to the system that the Americans had before "Obama Care".

http://www.nhsforsale.info/privatisation-list.html

This is a topic I've discussed a lot on this thread. Firstly, I think it's wrong to regard private enterprises as somehow evil. The NHS already deals extensively with private entities, whether it's suppliers of equipment, charities, drug companies and so on. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the NHS could (nor should) be a self contained state run bubble.

Secondly I think that this is a good thing and should be encouraged. What matters here is that the patient gets the best possible care and that it's free at the point of delivery. That's all the NHS should be worried about. Who provides that care to the patient shouldn't really matter. I know many organisations (mainly start-ups as that's my thing) that are doing some really great things in the healthcare industry. Some are profit focused, a good many are non-profit based, but most are outside of the NHS.

To give you an example. The King's Fund did some research last year that suggested the NHS had around 1.5m square feet of either un-used or under-used real estate. There are various ways of improving that situation, but most of the expertise would have to come from outside the NHS, with one Dutch company already working with the Dutch healthcare system to do just that. Kind of makes sense doesn't it?

Healthcare really does need to change imo as on its current trajectory it will consume ever larger chunks of state spending. It's not sustainable. Bringing in ideas and insights from wherever they come from is going to be needed if things are going to be workable for the next generation.

The issues with transport are far reaching, the main problem is that politics is generally "short term" and the benefits of transport infastructure changes are "long term". Mark Carney spoke about this last year. stating that the Govenment needed to spread the wealth from London by creating better transport infarstructure in the North.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-10-02/bank-of-england-governor-mark-carney-economy/

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-10-02/bank-of-england-governor-mark-carney-economy/

I quite agree, and you can see this too in energy or the complete mess over Heathrow. As long as a projects life cycle sits outside of the election period of the official required to decide upon it, then it's always likely to end in a mess. I mean there have been numerous discussions about creating better transport links between the northern cities. I wouldn't like to bet my house in the first spade being deployed any time soon.

What ever way you paint it the energy companies are taking the mick. They post record profits while old people freeze to death, becasue they cannot afford to heat their homes. in 2013 the profits of the big six energy suppliers were five times higher than they were in 2009.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ocketed-since-the-financial-crisis-began.html

I dont know if there is any one of the political parties who can fix these problems, I would love someone to at least give it a go though, the current lot are not even giving it a go in my opinion

I don't know much about the profit situation, but do feel the government could do more to free up the planning situation. We have one nuclear plant being built, but several more soon to be mothballed. No fracking has been attempted yet. This has been ongoing for decades now. A complete balls up by all concerned.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

On a related note, do people not realise that the media are trolling them? Did we learn nothing from Leveson? They don't exist to inform or provide a public service. They exist to sell copies and advertising. The best way to do that is to whip up anger and indignation about this, that and the other.

I'm no fan of politicians but it must be a right pain in the arse having to deal with the media all the time out to trip you up and cause false sensations.

 

[rascal]

Well that is certainly happening with the high-earner child benefit charge.

One that I don't actually agree with as the way it is worked out is absurd.

Raise the taxable income for those on £150,000 p/a to 60% instead and stop image right tax loopholes in sport.

 

[The Cowboy]

One that I don't actually agree with as the way it is worked out is absurd.

Raise the taxable income for those on £150,000 p/a to 60% instead.

I agree, the system is terrible and so incredible ill-conceived. A household of 2 x £39k earners can keep all their child benefit, whilst a household with 1 x £60k earner loses the lot.

 

[rascal]

On a related note, do people not realise that the media are trolling them? Did we learn nothing from Leveson? They don't exist to inform or provide a public service. They exist to sell copies and advertising. The best way to do that is to whip up anger and indignation about this, that and the other.

I'm no fan of politicians but it must be a right pain in the arse having to deal with the media all the time out to trip you up and cause false sensations.

Stopping 24/7 news is certainly high on my list of priorities when I am made King of the World.

 

[roydo]

One that I don't actually agree with as the way it is worked out is absurd.

Raise the taxable income for those on £150,000 p/a to 60% instead. Another one would be to stop image right tax loopholes in sport.

It doesnt generate any more tax receipts though. Been tried and proved tons of times. Sounds good, and can appeal to some, but it is actually pointless to do.

 

[The Cowboy]

Whilst not in the real world but the pampered and protected bubble world of the palace of westminster den of iniquity.

An initiative to save the taxpayer money by merging the catering services for the House of Commons and House of Lords was rejected by peers because they feared the quality of champagne would suffer as a result.

The Observer reports that Sir Malcolm Jack, who was clerk of the Commons between 2006 and 2011, made the claim as he gave evidence to a committee looking at how government should be run last week.

The Lords feared that the quality of champagne would not be as good if they chose a joint service.

• Sir Malcolm Jack

It is reported that the news was met with gasps by those in attendance and Jack Straw, who was leading the committee, said in astonishment: “Did you make that up? Is that true?” to which Jack replied: “Yes, it is true.”

The House of Lords has an annual catering budget of £1.3m and is reported to have bought in 17,000 bottles of bubbly since David Cameron’s government took office in 2010.

While people starve this government does nothing to stop themselves from having the indulgence of good champagne. I have to pay for my own food when at work. The £1.3 million would be better donated to foodbanks.

I wonder when the Tory fundamentalist Matt Hancock, the business minister "foodbanks are on the rise because more people know about them" will say about this. "More champagne is now drunk in the house of lords because more of them know it is free".

What a bunch of self deluded cretins that only worry about the quality of free champagne.

Agree, that is unacceptable. They are so deluded.

But why has that article related it to Cameron taking office in 2010? This Malcolm Jack fella was a clerk between 2006 and 2011 meaning this could well have happened under Labour's watch.

Do we have the figures for bubbly bought in during the Labour govt?

In fact, this has no real relevance to Cameron at all. The Lords is not related to the Commons like that.