Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I said is that the Tories will deliver Brexit under Johnson, and that the Brexit Party will be irrelevant.
In terms of the Brexit Party, they were defeated by Cornyn's Labour in a marginal seat in Peterborough a coule of weeks ago, and we will have to wait and see how they do in Brecon and Radnorshire in the upcoming election. Brecon and Radnorshire was a Lberal Democrat seat for many years, but voted Conservative in the last election, however the MP has been ousted after commiting expenses fraud.
The first past the post system can be difficult to predict in terms of marginal seats which are prone to change, however if the Brexit Party can't take these seats sand they fall to Labour, you could be looking at a Corbyn Government, something I have warned you about, as that is what happens when you divide the vote and let the opposition continue with an undivided vote in the first past the poll system.
In terms of UKIP under Farage, they managed more overall votes than the SNP, however whilst the SNP received forty seats, and UKIP didn't even get one seat, such is the first past the post system. Indeed you often don't get the intended result under the British system where each consituencies vote is all that matters, and there tend to be key marginal constituencies, and splitting votes can lead to other political parties being given an adavantage.
If we had proportional represention then the Brexit Party would be far moree influencial, and the best the Brexit Party can do is to support Boris Johnson should he become leader and to back his plan to leave on the 31st October this year. As long as this is seen through there is no need for Farage and his Brexit Party to continue.
Yet no mention of a Tory-BXP electoral pact ?
Johnson has no chance of getting no-deal through parliament and therefore an election will be inevitable.
Step forward Sir Nigel of Farage offering not to contest any seat where the sitting Tory MP has voted to leave.
Your analysis is far too simplistic and doesn't take into account a number of variables.
Such an average mayor that he was re-elected in a city that has always traditionally voted Labour.
'Very average mayor. Second time around only 38% of Londoners could even be bothered to vote. (down from 45% when he was first elected)
Result of re election was that he was re elected on 51% at second round.
Probably fair to say it should be remembered that the demographics have changed a lot in London over recent decades. The working class being far less in number as bankers and well paid types replace those forced out due to costs, fewer working class jobs and council removals to other parts of the country.
'Very average mayor. Second time around only 38% of Londoners could even be bothered to vote. (down from 45% when he was first elected)
Result of re election was that he was re elected on 51% at second round.
Probably fair to say it should be remembered that the demographics have changed a lot in London over recent decades. The working class being far less in number as bankers and well paid types replace those forced out due to costs, fewer working class jobs and council removals to other parts of the country.
And the fact that Londonistan's population has been swelled by large numbers of immigrants probably doesn't help the Tory cause either.
I lived in London under Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson's tenures and I know which I most preferred.
Livingstone's was the time of loony left politicians bankrupting borough councils and not emptying the bins.
And the fact that Londonistan's population has been swelled by large numbers of immigrants probably doesn't help the Tory cause either.
I lived in London under Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson's tenures and I know which I most preferred.
Livingstone's was the time of loony left politicians bankrupting borough councils and not emptying the bins.
If you could shake off your right wing bias objectivity might rule. Londonistan indeed. I lived in London under Ken first time around. He certainly got up the noses of the ruling Thatcher government. So much so they abolished the GLC. Right winger don't like to be called to account. Earlier in eighties they lowered tube fairs. So know who I preferred to live under. It wasn't the pretend clown Boris.
If you could shake off your right wing bias objectivity might rule. Londonistan indeed. I lived in London under Ken first time around. He certainly got up the noses of the ruling Thatcher government. So much so they abolished the GLC. Right winger don't like to be called to account. Earlier in eighties they lowered tube fairs. So know who I preferred to live under. It wasn't the pretend clown Boris.
They abolished all metropolitan county councils and devolved their powers to local councils. How was this a bad thing?
You failed to mention lower tube fares were financed by the tax payer through government subsidies, and rate hikes, then found illegal due to Bromsgrove having increased Council rates, but no benefit from the program (seems like it was unfair is fare).
They abolished all metropolitan county councils and devolved their powers to local councils. How was this a bad thing?
You failed to mention lower tube fares were financed by the tax payer through government subsidies, and rate hikes, then found illegal due to Bromsgrove having increased Council rates, but no benefit from the program (seems like it was unfair is fare).
Bad thing.? London was at the time the only city of importance not to have a local government. But the reasons was purely political on Thatchers part. She was appalled at opposition to her ill founded policies.
Lower tube fares would naturally result in the likelihood of greater subsidy. So what? Cheaper public transport (as is the case in most of Europe) far more advantageous to moving London around, reducing toxic pollution of car exhausts, increasing mobility time and the like. Obviously still considered a good idea as tube expansion has greatly increased from those distant days.
So you can see plenty of benefit. Where there was no benefit of course was the selling at tax payers subsidised council housing, only to be sold off at big profits in many cases a few years later. Disgraceful neglect for ideological reasons that London would feel later.
Bad thing.? London was at the time the only city of importance not to have a local government. But the reasons was purely political on Thatchers part. She was appalled at opposition to her ill founded policies.
Lower tube fares would naturally result in the likelihood of greater subsidy. So what? Cheaper public transport (as is the case in most of Europe) far more advantageous to moving London around, reducing toxic pollution of car exhausts, increasing mobility time and the like. Obviously still considered a good idea as tube expansion has greatly increased from those distant days.
So you can see plenty of benefit. Where there was no benefit of course was the selling at tax payers subsidised council housing, only to be sold off at big profits in many cases a few years later. Disgraceful neglect for ideological reasons that London would feel later.
London did have local councils the act eliminating the GLC and all metropolitan county councils devolved those powers to borough councils, and created several committees and authorities to administer sections that could not be handled by a local borough, like the passenger transport authorities, London already having London Regional Teansport.
Bank robbers never think that they're doing something wrong either, but banks have a different opinion. Growing up in the West End of Newcastle in a predominantly lib-dem/Tory area, I can tell you the Tyne and Wear County Council did NOTHING for the area except the bare minimum, it's no surprise the Tyne and Wear Metro boondoggle (which cost untold billions) does not serve the West side of Newcastle. Why provide a service to those unlikely to maintain you in power? But they could afford a nice big shiny civic center, the corruption is well documented.
Higher subsidies come from somewhere, where is that somewhere? It's people, they pay higher taxes, rates, VAT, license fees, duty, etc. which is fine if you see benefit of it, but if you don't or can't (because you're not served by those services) it's just plain theft.
You really need to read what I write and stop fantasizing what you think I'm saying.
London was given power to regulate bus services in the 1980s while all other metropolitan areas were forced to deregulate and hand over bus provision to unregulated private operators.
30 years later guess where has seen bus services improve and passenger numbers go up and which areas have seen bus services decline?
No prizes for getting the right answer, London buses are cheaper and the services are much better than in other big UK cities. Whenever I travel on London buses it seems almost miraculous that fares are integrated with other forms of public transport, there isn't any of the nonsense you get in other cities where a ticket on one bus isn't valid on other bus operators services or rail etc.
Of course it isn't a miracle at all, it's just a result of the policy decisions made back then that make it so much more difficult to provide a decent public transport system in cities outside London.
London did have local councils the act eliminating the GLC and all metropolitan county councils devolved those powers to borough councils, and created several committees and authorities to administer sections that could not be handled by a local borough, like the passenger transport authorities, London already having London Regional Teansport.
Bank robbers never think that they're doing something wrong either, but banks have a different opinion. Growing up in the West End of Newcastle in a predominantly lib-dem/Tory area, I can tell you the Tyne and Wear County Council did NOTHING for the area except the bare minimum, it's no surprise the Tyne and Wear Metro boondoggle (which cost untold billions) does not serve the West side of Newcastle. Why provide a service to those unlikely to maintain you in power? But they could afford a nice big shiny civic center, the corruption is well documented.
Higher subsidies come from somewhere, where is that somewhere? It's people, they pay higher taxes, rates, VAT, license fees, duty, etc. which is fine if you see benefit of it, but if you don't or can't (because you're not served by those services) it's just plain theft.
You really need to read what I write and stop fantasizing what you think I'm saying.
AS mentioned it is fully to the benefit of a city like London, which depends far more on public transport than an out in the sticks sort of city than Newcastle (although the few buses I have caught in that city appeared adequate) I'll leave it for you Geordies to discuss the in's and out's of your public transport service but hardly comparable with a city such as London. Corruption and wasting money and is hardly unique to Newcastle. But moving on. How about the ridiculous notions of tax cuts for starters. The more tax is reduced the les service will be provided. Hardly rocket science. London by nature of its world and prime business status requires a top public transport system that is safe, reliable and cheap. I would say paramount to the success of such a city.
AS mentioned it is fully to the benefit of a city like London, which depends far more on public transport than an out in the sticks sort of city than Newcastle (although the few buses I have caught in that city appeared adequate) I'll leave it for you Geordies to discuss the in's and out's of your public transport service but hardly comparable with a city such as London. Corruption and wasting money and is hardly unique to Newcastle. But moving on. How about the ridiculous notions of tax cuts for starters. The more tax is reduced the les service will be provided. Hardly rocket science. London by nature of its world and prime business status requires a top public transport system that is safe, reliable and cheap. I would say paramount to the success of such a city.
Corruption wasn't limited to Tyne & Wear County Council, it was in all of them, that was part of the rationale of abolishing them, to increase accountability by making the local councils responsible.
But you're dodging an important question...
What is the real price of the system? If you pay £2.00 a trip is that adequate? Is £8.00 adequate? What if its costing you really (due to taxes and rates) £8.00 for that £2.00 public transport ticket?
Or maybe you're paying in taxes and rates £50 a month to London Transport, for a £30 travel pass. That pass isn't £30 its £80 in real terms.
Maybe its not costing you that £8.00 or £80 maybe you just pay £4.00 or £40 the other £4.00 or £40 coming from Joe Smith in Wolverhampton, who gets zero benefit from his tax money going to London Regional Transport.
The reality is you can calculate precisely how much is needed to run public transport, you can also precisely calculate the ticket prices to run at break even, if the tickets cost less than break even then the money has to come from somewhere or the transport service will go bankrupt. Cheap at point of service does not mean cheap, it just hides the real cost. Like only a complete moron would think health treatment is "free". So when your public transport is cheap, it's almost certainly not cheap.
Problem with taxes (and based on your posting you can"t have ever paid much in tax), is that means the person taxed cannot inject that money into the economy, they can't buy a bigger house, remodel their current house, or a new car, or take a vacation, buy a new TV, etc. which increases revenue of the company/person selling those goods or services, or can't save it to open their own business. It depresses the economy, more taxes, more depression, it's pretty simple economics. It's also depressing on a personal perspective to see huge chunks of your income vanish for the benefit of others. I mean how would you feel going to get a pizza, and the guy serving you reclaims 1/3 to 1/2 of your pizza in pizza tax? You'd be pretty upset, but you pay for your income with your time, skills, and effort, and your employer takes 1/3 to 1/2 your income in income tax.
And you think this shouldn't be reduced? That's why I know you've never paid much in taxes, but when you're paying more in annual taxes than an average family of four makes in a year you feel it. Forget the percentages, £50k-£75k a year in tax is serious money in anyone's book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
