Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 19:07:36 GMT
Nigel Farage told Eddie Mair "of course" he will not refund the dropped Brexit Party candidates, after deciding not to stand his party against the Conservatives in 317 seats. Eddie Mair asked: "Would you refund the money would-be candidates have spent?" Farage said that he "warned them all, face to face, that if circumstances changed" then there might be a different "situation". He said: "I'm sorry to the people that have put their time and their money on the line." Eddie then asked: "How much money how much money have you raked in with these non-refundable £100s?" Farage told Eddie that 3000 people applied to be candidates. Eddie asked if they were going to be recompensed. Nigel Farage said: "Of course not. We're a political party set up to deliver a proper Brexit. We have reset the political agenda this year in the most astonishing way." Eddie replied: "Well, it is astonishing, isn't it? Last week, you took their money and, last week, you said they would stand for your party and this week you changed your mind?" Nigel Farage tells Eddie Mair he will not refund dropped Brexit Party candidates Nigel Farage tells Eddie Mair he will not refund dropped Brexit Party candidates. Picture: PA Eddie pressed him further on his "accountability" to the people who have given him money. Farage responded: "People who have given me money believe that the Brexit Party is here to deliver Brexit and that is what we're going to fight our damnedest to do." Eddie said: "You said they would stand last week in the face of everyone saying this was madness. You said no, no, 600 candidates, unless Boris Johnson backs down, he didn't back down. You can't blame the EU for this, you can't blame Theresa May for this. Why don't you open your cheque book and refund the money?" Eddie later asked: "Are you going to bottle refunding their money as well?" Farage replied: "I'm not going to refund their money. They put their faith in me to do the right thing and the vast majority of them, this afternoon, agree with what I've done." The best bit is of course 28 seconds "You know, that what gets promised and what gets delivered can be two different things" And therein lies the rub.... Speaking of what gets promised and what gets delivered: the Scottish were promised that a “No” vote in the Indy ref would guarantee they stayed in Europe. What’s that I hear you say? “Democracy?”, “The will of the people?” If the Scots aren’t allowed to get what they voted for then I don’t know what makes the English leavers any more entitled to it.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 19:08:36 GMT
That last bit, you couldn't make it up could you. Jess Phillips (Labour), who is a pretty plain talking MP, says the same thing.... Watch the videoMy dad did as well. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,558 
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 20:08:42 GMT
How bizarre. I’m sure I read somewhere that a leader in an unsafe seat could either be parachuted in somewhere else either during or after the election. This may sound like a daft question but what are basics in regards to an MP/candidate and their constituency? They obviously have to live within the boundary of their constituency to stand/represent them? Do you know if there is a certain period of time one has to serve to represent a constituency? Otherwise what would stop Boris renting a house in a safe Tory seat and just running there? There are no residency rules, unless things have changed recently. Once declared as a candidate there can be no changes although he could move up until then. If he was to lose I suspect another MP will conveniently 'step down for family reasons' and BJ will be the candidate. He would have to either resign and be replaced as leader and PM or take a peerage first, be elected and renounce his peerage. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,558
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 20:13:20 GMT
Ha! That would be funny, but standard practice is to shuttle the PM off to a safe seat and have them take over the candidacy there, right? It’s a good point about the various variables. I’m hopeful it won’t be a landslide Tory victory but that’s about it at this point. God it shows how age has crept up on me, my idea of an all nighter these days is taking a day off work so I can stay up all night watching the election results come in. Kill me now!  You're a child. My idea of an 'all nighter' is when I don't have to get up in the middle of the night for a pee ! Do what Baggins does and just sleep in the bathroom. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 20:21:49 GMT
You're a child. My idea of an 'all nighter' is when I don't have to get up in the middle of the night for a pee ! Do what Baggins does and just sleep in the bathroom. You are using a lot of artistic licence calling a public lavatory a 'bathroom'. |
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,558
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 20:33:43 GMT
Do what Baggins does and just sleep in the bathroom. You are using a lot of artistic licence calling a public lavatory a 'bathroom'. I was going to be clearer and say Bolder's bathroom but it seems you already knew what I meant. 😉 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 20:48:30 GMT
How bizarre. I’m sure I read somewhere that a leader in an unsafe seat could either be parachuted in somewhere else either during or after the election. This may sound like a daft question but what are basics in regards to an MP/candidate and their constituency? They obviously have to live within the boundary of their constituency to stand/represent them? Do you know if there is a certain period of time one has to serve to represent a constituency? Otherwise what would stop Boris renting a house in a safe Tory seat and just running there? There are no residency rules, unless things have changed recently. Once declared as a candidate there can be no changes although he could move up until then. If he was to lose I suspect another MP will conveniently 'step down for family reasons' and BJ will be the candidate. He would have to either resign and be replaced as leader and PM or take a peerage first, be elected and renounce his peerage. That was an assumption on my part because it seemed obvious....so I can be selected to stand in Glasgow south, for example, when I’ve never even been there?! I guess that doesn’t happen in practice, but it seems a bit odd and open to abuse as in the case of Boris really needing a safe seat. Very surprised he’s standing in Uxbridge now, especially after reading that his opponent looks to have captured the student vote. God, now I’ve gone one step further and am really looking forward to the announcement of the Uxbridge result on the 13th. Ffs! Just waiting for nobby to take me out the back and put a bolt in my head |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 21:09:57 GMT
There are no residency rules, unless things have changed recently. Once declared as a candidate there can be no changes although he could move up until then. If he was to lose I suspect another MP will conveniently 'step down for family reasons' and BJ will be the candidate. He would have to either resign and be replaced as leader and PM or take a peerage first, be elected and renounce his peerage. That was an assumption on my part because it seemed obvious....so I can be selected to stand in Glasgow south, for example, when I’ve never even been there?! I guess that doesn’t happen in practice, but it seems a bit odd and open to abuse as in the case of Boris really needing a safe seat. Very surprised he’s standing in Uxbridge now, especially after reading that his opponent looks to have captured the student vote. God, now I’ve gone one step further and am really looking forward to the announcement of the Uxbridge result on the 13th. Ffs! Just waiting for nobby to take me out the back and put a bolt in my head I don't do bolts. I am a disciple of Master Ken. |
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Nov 11, 2019 22:00:21 GMT
Oldie are you a spin doctor? You would make a good journalist, changing everything to suit your own political agenda. I've read where people are proud of achieving through hard work and I've given an example of someone being given something without any effort being made and the resulting lack of confidence. How this can be interpreted to be sad, heaven knows. Perhaps I give you too much credit and maybe your levels of comprehension are low. Or maybe you don't understand the written word. That is sad. The point is Al, which you appear to either disagree with, or show where I am wrong, is that we, our generation benefitted hugely from the huge expansion of public services after 1948. Just to emphasise, we had the massive investment in an NHS, the huge expansion in the provision of higher education, particularly at comprehensive and university education, the investment in social housing. These things you and I benefitted from hugely. It didnt mean we lost our work ethic, the opposite if you look what happened both technically and in another equally valuable sphere, the world of art (in its broadest definition). But you appear to be decrying all of that, claiming one has just to have to worked hard, or harder. Giving no credence to what is actually, as our generation proved (in the main), the fact that if a civilised society ensures the adequate provision of health, housing and education, the rest takes care of itself. Regardless of Corbyn, the Tories do not believe this at all. They view state intervention as near communism. One last question Al, did you go to university? Cheers You sure have rose coloured specs about the past. Maybe you were happier then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 22:25:23 GMT
What is interesting is the amount of people who just shout out that we have to build more houses, especially council or affordable houses. The current crop of politicians claim that they will build 200,000 new homes. The only problem with this is that there are approx. 48,000 cities, towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, so that works out at around four or five new homes in each place.
That's not going to work is it.
The next question is this. We are constantly told that the birth rate in the UK is going down, and has been for a number of years now, so why do we need to build more and more houses?
As for council houses, the main problem here is the cost to the council. After buying the land, paying for the houses to be built, the rental income comes nowhere near to covering the cost. Throw in the maintenance costs as well, which only rise as a house gets older, and it is not surprising that councils shy away from building more council houses. The naked truth is that council housing is a ongoing financial drain on the council.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,558
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Nov 11, 2019 22:53:06 GMT
There are no residency rules, unless things have changed recently. Once declared as a candidate there can be no changes although he could move up until then. If he was to lose I suspect another MP will conveniently 'step down for family reasons' and BJ will be the candidate. He would have to either resign and be replaced as leader and PM or take a peerage first, be elected and renounce his peerage. That was an assumption on my part because it seemed obvious....so I can be selected to stand in Glasgow south, for example, when I’ve never even been there?! I guess that doesn’t happen in practice, but it seems a bit odd and open to abuse as in the case of Boris really needing a safe seat. Very surprised he’s standing in Uxbridge now, especially after reading that his opponent looks to have captured the student vote. God, now I’ve gone one step further and am really looking forward to the announcement of the Uxbridge result on the 13th. Ffs! Just waiting for nobby to take me out the back and put a bolt in my head In theory you could stand in Glasgow. The rules are: People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the constituency they wish to stand in. Authorisation is required to stand for a specific party, otherwise candidates will be described as independent or have no description. In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a £500 deposit is required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate receives over five per cent of the total votes cast. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 23:14:55 GMT
What is interesting is the amount of people who just shout out that we have to build more houses, especially council or affordable houses. The current crop of politicians claim that they will build 200,000 new homes. The only problem with this is that there are approx. 48,000 cities, towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, so that works out at around four or five new homes in each place. That's not going to work is it. The next question is this. We are constantly told that the birth rate in the UK is going down, and has been for a number of years now, so why do we need to build more and more houses? As for council houses, the main problem here is the cost to the council. After buying the land, paying for the houses to be built, the rental income comes nowhere near to covering the cost. Throw in the maintenance costs as well, which only rise as a house gets older, and it is not surprising that councils shy away from building more council houses. The naked truth is that council housing is a ongoing financial drain on the council. 200,000 is a start at least. The birth rate might be declining but what about all the 20/30 year olds who will never own their own home? What are we going to do with them when they retire and are paying rents that have been steadily inflating faster than wages since 2017 (and they weren’t cheap then). I’ve said for ages that pensioner housing is going to be a major bubble. Unless preventative action is taken either by increasing housing stock or steadily deflating housing prices or controlling rents (all of 3 which are highly undesirable to free market capitalists) you are going to end up with the ludicrous situation of landlords paying all their tax on their wages and rental income, the state then paying it to the pensioner who puts it back in the landlords pocket. And you can bet the landlords will be complaining bitterly that their tax money is being used to pay their extortionate rents! You won’t be able to make it up! The whole melting pot is a disaster waiting to happen and something has got to give to release the pressure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 23:19:10 GMT
That was an assumption on my part because it seemed obvious....so I can be selected to stand in Glasgow south, for example, when I’ve never even been there?! I guess that doesn’t happen in practice, but it seems a bit odd and open to abuse as in the case of Boris really needing a safe seat. Very surprised he’s standing in Uxbridge now, especially after reading that his opponent looks to have captured the student vote. God, now I’ve gone one step further and am really looking forward to the announcement of the Uxbridge result on the 13th. Ffs! Just waiting for nobby to take me out the back and put a bolt in my head In theory you could stand in Glasgow. The rules are: People wishing to stand as an MP must be over 18 years of age, be a British citizen or citizen of a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the constituency they wish to stand in. Authorisation is required to stand for a specific party, otherwise candidates will be described as independent or have no description. In order to encourage only serious candidates to stand, a £500 deposit is required when submitting the nomination papers - returned if the candidate receives over five per cent of the total votes cast....and if you’re not a member of the Brexit party, it seems! Very surprising that there is no criteria that one must be a resident of their constituency in order to represent it. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 12, 2019 11:15:26 GMT
Labour says it has suffered a "sophisticated and large-scale cyber attack on its digital systems"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 11:22:23 GMT
Labour says it has suffered a "sophisticated and large-scale cyber attack on its digital systems" Perhaps Diane Abbot just pressed a wrong button? |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 12, 2019 11:37:04 GMT
What is interesting is the amount of people who just shout out that we have to build more houses, especially council or affordable houses. The current crop of politicians claim that they will build 200,000 new homes. The only problem with this is that there are approx. 48,000 cities, towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, so that works out at around four or five new homes in each place. That's not going to work is it. The next question is this. We are constantly told that the birth rate in the UK is going down, and has been for a number of years now, so why do we need to build more and more houses? As for council houses, the main problem here is the cost to the council. After buying the land, paying for the houses to be built, the rental income comes nowhere near to covering the cost. Throw in the maintenance costs as well, which only rise as a house gets older, and it is not surprising that councils shy away from building more council houses. The naked truth is that council housing is a ongoing financial drain on the council. Sounds great doesn't it, 200,000 new homes. Then you do the maths, and it's crap really. Like many other figures bounded about for doing this, doing that, lots of "0's" but when you break it down, it's pathetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 12:15:16 GMT
What is interesting is the amount of people who just shout out that we have to build more houses, especially council or affordable houses. The current crop of politicians claim that they will build 200,000 new homes. The only problem with this is that there are approx. 48,000 cities, towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, so that works out at around four or five new homes in each place. That's not going to work is it. The next question is this. We are constantly told that the birth rate in the UK is going down, and has been for a number of years now, so why do we need to build more and more houses? As for council houses, the main problem here is the cost to the council. After buying the land, paying for the houses to be built, the rental income comes nowhere near to covering the cost. Throw in the maintenance costs as well, which only rise as a house gets older, and it is not surprising that councils shy away from building more council houses. The naked truth is that council housing is a ongoing financial drain on the council. Sounds great doesn't it, 200,000 new homes. Then you do the maths, and it's crap really. Like many other figures bounded about for doing this, doing that, lots of "0's" but when you break it down, it's pathetic. They promised 200,000 new affordable homes in 2014. They built zero of that commitment, £2B was the stated commitment. They did spend £174 Million of your money buying the land however. To do what with? Probably gave it to the company that made the highest donation to Tory Party coffers, perhaps? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 12:26:35 GMT
Sounds great doesn't it, 200,000 new homes. Then you do the maths, and it's crap really. Like many other figures bounded about for doing this, doing that, lots of "0's" but when you break it down, it's pathetic. They promised 200,000 new affordable homes in 2014. They built zero of that commitment, £2B was the stated commitment. They did spend £174 Million of your money buying the land however. To do what with? Probably gave it to the company that made the highest donation to Tory Party coffers, perhaps? Your last line is pure speculation, unless of course, you have proof? As I said earlier, the realjty is that local councils don't really want to build council houses. Government doesn't build houses, councils do that. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Nov 12, 2019 12:47:10 GMT
They promised 200,000 new affordable homes in 2014. They built zero of that commitment, £2B was the stated commitment. They did spend £174 Million of your money buying the land however. To do what with? Probably gave it to the company that made the highest donation to Tory Party coffers, perhaps? Your last line is pure speculation, unless of course, you have proof? As I said earlier, the realjty is that local councils don't really want to build council houses. Government doesn't build houses, councils do that. Unfortunately the Tories have cut Council funding so they can't afford new homes, or even fund schools, or parks, or libraries, or hospitals. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 12, 2019 12:50:13 GMT
They promised 200,000 new affordable homes in 2014. They built zero of that commitment, £2B was the stated commitment. They did spend £174 Million of your money buying the land however. To do what with? Probably gave it to the company that made the highest donation to Tory Party coffers, perhaps? Your last line is pure speculation, unless of course, you have proof? As I said earlier, the realjty is that local councils don't really want to build council houses. Government doesn't build houses, councils do that. How do you expect councils to build homes when there funding for everything has been cut to the bone by Government policy |
|
