[arista]

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...ision-12221685

33seconds edit.

[smudgie]

British recovery bond sounds good.
Tories have been talking of this for the last couple of weeks.
The problems I see are that it will make the more well off more well off, not much help in it for the none savers.
Plus it costs more to have the bonds than it does to borrow.

[arista]

Originally Posted by smudgie

British recovery bond sounds good.
Tories have been talking of this for the last couple of weeks.
The problems I see are that it will make the more well off more well off, not much help in it for the none savers.
Plus it costs more to have the bonds than it does to borrow.

Yes he is talking Conservative plans
and putting more Cash into them.


Ref:Live Debate Times Radio DAB.

[arista]

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

He is Not Conservative.


He has concluded

Originally Posted by arista

Yes he is talking Conservative plans
and putting more Cash into them.


Ref:Live Debate Times Radio DAB.

[arista]

The full Speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JNpefL5fYk

[arista]

[joeysteele]

I think Starmer and Labour need to state they will bring in PR for voting.

Labour can be over 10% in votes in this daft outdated election system and still fall short of an overall majority in the next election.

In 2019, the Cons were just over 10% ahead of Labour on 43% of the votes cast, yet got an 80 overall majority.

Labour can get a 5 year term to be as formative of society in the next election, as was done in 1945 to 1951.

Then get PR in place.

One thing would then be certain, no extremes could ever likely govern alone again.

We'd never get absolute power given to a party, such as in 2005 with under 36% of votes cast giving Labour a 58 overall majority at that election.
Nor could we get inflicted on us, a Con government with an 80 overall majority to just ride over and dismiss the votes of the 56% who actually voted against it.

Cut the losses, Labour has more in common with most other Parties, the Cons really only attract extremes like UKIP or the 'un' Democrat Unionists of N. Ireland.
Although Johnson has singlehandedly just about upset them too.

The ONLY party, that would be staunchly against PR are the Cons and their harder line 30%- 33% supporters.
Even UKIP would have backed PR I think.

Starmer should consider it and really change politics for good.
After his 5 year term as Premier of a Labour government.

I actually think if he included the intention to adopt PR.
A bandwagon would roll, which would ensure it was supported and voted for.

Proper PR which would need to be agreed by Parties and passed in parliament.
Not the daft proposal which wasn't really PR we voted on from the coalition.

We hear in politics, there's prices worth paying for things.
Well yes,under PR my Party Labour would not ever likely be able to govern alone unfettered.

The price worth paying for me however would be the Cons would be spitting feathers and blowing their fuses as they'd likely never get absolute power again too.

[Oliver_W]

Bringing in PR wouldn't only change the voting system, but the entire parlimentary system, for want of better words. We vote for our local MP, so depending on how seats would be allocated under PR wouldn't some constituencies have an MP they didn't vote for?

[arista]

"need to state they will bring in PR for voting."



But they will not

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Bringing in PR wouldn't only change the voting system, but the entire parlimentary system, for want of better words. We vote for our local MP, so depending on how seats would be allocated under PR wouldn't some constituencies have an MP they didn't vote for?

Doesn't need to be that way.

You'd always have access to MPs, however you'd know your vote mattered and that no single party could ever again take power absolutely on less than 50% of the votes cast.

Decades ago the 2 main parties got over 90% of all votes cast.
That's fallen in elections over time.
Even in 2019 around 25% of the votes cast near a quarter, were cast for parties all against the present government.
Yet they got a government with an 80 overall majority.

Quite frankly a lot of people haven't a clue who is, and even a number of those who vote either, who is their actual MP for the constituency.

Then you get seats won by a few hundred votes, where say possibly around 12000 voted Con, 11500 voted Labour, 7000 voting Lib Dem.a couple of thousand voting for smaller parties.
Yet the one a few hundred votes ahead gets the seat for 5 years.
When on that scenario possibly double number of voters voted against that MP in the constituency...

That's bonkers, no wonder people feel their votes don't matter and why between one fifth to a quarter of voters who could vote, just don't bother to.

It's time to join the 21st century and make real votes get the real results they should.
We use PR in the devolved assemblies.
It's time we elected governments the same way.

I really have come round to supporting PR.
It's why I voted LibDem in 2010, hoping for a coalition to get it..
Then the Lib Dems threw it out themselves for a daft crumbs throwing proposal via referendum from the Cons.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

"need to state they will bring in PR for voting."



But they will not

There's a growing mood among Labour voters and members arista.

As a Con, you will fear PR most with respect and would never want it.
Because unless your party develops a real heart and true compassion, it would likely never be in government again under PR.

Let's see how things look in a couple of years.
If PR could tip a balance of attracting votes and power, there's even Labour MPs who think it really is time to seriously consider it now.

[arista]

[arista]

[Keir Starmer backs move and distances
Labour from teaching unions fighting for a phased return]



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ktop_tvshowbiz

[Sir Keir today said he wanted all pupils in
England back in school on March 8.
He told Sky News Sophy Ridge on Sunday that
more coronavirus testing
and 'Nightingale classrooms'
could address some of the issues.

Sir Keir said: 'Ideally, I would like to see all schools back open
on March 8 and all children back into schools on March 8.]

[joeysteele]

Ideally I'd guess the vast majority of people would want schools back on March 8th.

However I remain unconvinced that's wise and think Starmer ill advised to support it.

I just can't see the point, when most restrictions may be left in place, where it's in any way wise to have schools return for only 3 weeks to be off again for Easter.
Just start them the week after Easter.

Not take any unnecessary risks AGAIN!!!

[The Slim Reaper]

Starmer on the BBC defending Hancocks law breaking. But he's not a tory

[arista]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Starmer on the BBC defending Hancocks law breaking. But he's not a tory

Is he?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

Is he?

He was earlier. Won't be calling for his resignation. He broke the law, but that's cool with Keir.

[arista]

On his very long recorded interview on Ridge
SkyNewsHD
he said he did not want him to Resign
but he must answer for the Buying contracts,

[The Slim Reaper]

He should be sacked, and then he should be in court. Starmer still blocking his MPs discussing the disastrous brexit. It's hard to imagine a better labour leader for the tories.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

He should be sacked, and then he should be in court. Starmer still blocking his MPs discussing the disastrous brexit. It's hard to imagine a better labour leader for the tories.

I was warming to Hancock at only the present though, on the pandemic.

However I agree with you.
This is resignation territory and I too am dismayed at Starmer's reluctance to keep this more to the forefront of debate..

The media too, to protect Hancock and possibly the PM too, are keeping this quiet.
It would be another unforgivable scandal under Labour in the media.

Con supporters just brush it under the carpet too.

However yes, I think it is a resignation issue or sacking one.
Starmer is not showing strength on this at all.
For decency alone he should be calling for more action on this.

Not let Hancock get away with saying what he did today..
The court said he was wrong.
He should go.

[arista]

Ridge,
right after Starmer
she went Live to Former Shadow Chancellor
John McDonnell MP
he said all the Teaching Unions do now want every school open,
until it is safe.

[arista]

"The court said he was wrong."


Yes he was wrong to delay publishing the details
but he says it's due to the pressure of the pandemic.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by arista

"The court said he was wrong."


Yes he was wrong to delay publishing the details
but he says it's due to the pressure of the pandemic.

Doesn't matter what he says. I'm sure everyone who breaks the law has an excuse.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

"The court said he was wrong."


Yes he was wrong to delay publishing the details
but he says it's due to the pressure of the pandemic.

He acted unlawfully in his trusted Ministerial position.
Found so by the court and in law.

That's the only relevant fact of this.