Political Comment.

• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well the Libdems have elected Nick Clegg as leader by a very narrow margin.
  
  What will be the long term impact of this, will there be any?
  
  A short term bounce will happen, after all they are at a very low ebb at the polls so if this does not happen they really will be in a bad way. But will it be sustained in the long term?
  
  His narrow win does not confer authority over his Party. He is not in tune with the 'sandal wearing' brigade in the LibDems so he could have some discipline problems.
  
  Under Ming the LibDems were an irrelivance and I am not convinced that with Clegg's victory that this will change. They are caught in a classic Lab/Con squeeze and make no mistake, the clear (and true) message will be 'vote LibDem and get Labour'....
  
  This result may be good for Gordon Brown, if Clegg can restore LibDem fortunes with poll figures closer to 20%.
  
  Somehow, however, I believe that any such revival will be short lived. The 'time for a change' bandwagon will gather pace with DC as the main beneficiary and that will be the main driving force behind the next election result as it was in 1997.
  
  Of course, there then begs the question - will Gordon Brown survive to the next election? A bad set of results in the local elections next May could see increasing discontent among his backbenchers.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I noticed I did not give the figures:
  
  Clegg: 20988 votes (50.6%)
  Huhne: 20477 votes
  Total: 41465
  
  To compare when Ming was elected 51,325 votes were cast so it shows an amazing lack of interest among Libdems over their own leader....No wonder the rest of us were bored by it.
  
  As a matter of interest 198,844 voted in the Conservative leadership ballot when DC was elected of which over 66% voted for DC.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well..I didnt realise it was over and there we are...the latest golden boy in british politics, ermm since the last latest golden boy, has finally won through. The slow slow requiem for a lost leader has finally burst into a crescendo to wake us all up.
  
  Thanks for the figures there BarryW and phew it was so close. Golden boy beats the schoolmaster but only by a whisker. However the two guys in question are pretty useful and formidable politicians to have working together in a team, and now with added boost from the new lease of life found by...oh dear the current temporary leader who's name escapes me for the moment, the one who said " Gordon Brown had changed from a Stalin into a Mr Bean overnight "..well with his new found powerbase and thoughtful aggression, maybe the LibDems are on the up.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i must admit that i rather admired that chap that took temporary charge, spoke very clearly without resorting to the usual flannel.
  
  apparently the age thing came in yet again.
  
  not that it matters, they are just an irrelevance at present.
  
  i suppose general election time they will get proxy votes from red and blue voters trying to keep their enemies out.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  have to agree with you, the Lib/Dem acting leader looked and spoke the part, but his age was against him.
  
  still they will always be the protest party.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes indeed. The chaps name is of course Vince Cable and he rose to the challenge very well. Perhaps when you get the Leaders job in such a way, and for such a short period, you dont feel the same weight of pressure, and he certainly did not suffer from the same level of rabbitinheadlight-ism as poor Ming Campbell suffered.
  
  Yet prior to him becoming leader, Ming was the acceptable and easy digestible face of LibDem-ism. He touted himself around the late night TV shows in expert fashion and was a much liked gentleman politician of the old school. But cast into the public razzle dazzle of leader and he lost his way. Who'd have thought it.
  
  Nick Clegg is not of the old school but very much of the new media savvy school. He said all the right things in his speech last night and then was photographed with his photogenic wife so he hit the ground running and hit all the right notes.
  
  On the other hand the poor old dream team status once enjoyed by Labour has long since evaporated and they are now left with what looks like a second string team. It's rather like those great football sides, Real Madrid springs to mind, when their superstars get older and their time is gone...the replacements are never quite of the same calibre and they slip down the table of fortune. Perhaps now again the Conservatives will find its their turn at the helm.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  i know you would say you wod say that
  but as much as our barryw posts people still aint ready for a conservative lot, thats not just me saying it, iv heard it dfferent parts of District and country
  
  still as i keep saying lets wait and see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
• Guest 640 wrote:
  You seem to suggest there Keef that Im a Conservative but Im not at all. Anyone who spends time arguing the toss with me in de pub will know where Im coming from as a one time old leftie, but nowadays with added champagne !!lol
  
  Im sadly reflective that perhaps the best era for the Labour Party has probably passed...for now anyway. Gordon Brown has been a bit of a disappointment after all those years waiting in the wings...so much so that even the political commentators at the recent weekend were speculating on the chances of him personally surviving...although its true its still early days. However at the moment they are giviing the impression that they just teether from one calamity to another and as a consequence their ratings have slumped.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that gordon has been waiting too long, and has been a bit unlucky with timing.
  
  rather like going to a new job, and finding that the last incumbent has been covering things up for a while, open a drawer and a load of unanswered problems fall out.
  
  will he have the stamina and determination to ride out the storm?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  getting back to the reflections of paul here, i think he is right that an era has come to an end.
  
  i remember when the blue people unexpectedly won against neil kinnock's party,
  they looked absolutely stunned, they had gone through their repertoire of populist polices and were suddenly stuck with having to think up new ones.
  
  the ministers started to look tired and just became arrogant.
  
  they then got annihalated in 1997.
  
  the red people are looking in the same way now.
  
  the arrogance of power can only be rectified at the ballot box.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  getting back to the reflections of paul here, i think he is right that an era has come to an end.
  
  i remember when the blue people unexpectedly won against neil kinnock's party,
  they looked absolutely stunned, they had gone through their repertoire of populist polices and were suddenly stuck with having to think up new ones.
  
  the ministers started to look tired and just became arrogant.
  
  they then got annihalated in 1997.
  
  the red people are looking in the same way now.
  
  the arrogance of power can only be rectified at the ballot box.
• keith, dover wrote:
  paulb
  iv never doubted your red under the bed credentials
  even with the bubbly touch
  
  Im sure our gordon has something up his sleeve
  
  
  
  lets wait and see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Another interesting gem emerging from the new LibDem Leader.. stop the press...or stone the crows..
  
  He doesnt believe in God!!!!
  
  This has caused something of a kerfuffle since Nick Clegg said this yesterday on the radio. Why though!!?? We are in an age were fewer and fewer people believe in God or pratice any kind of religion, yet we are shocked if one of our national politicians comes out and says so. This proves that we do expect a higher moral standard from our politicians than we are able to deliver ourselves in our own daily lives but are we hypocritical in this, politicians must have no sex but plenty of religion !! We are a funny lot!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have to agree with you Howard. Winning the 1992 election was bad for the Conservatives, it would have been better for us if we had lost that one. The last General election will become known as the one Labour wished they had lost....
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  there is 1 difference between 1992 to today
  92 were expected to win(labour)
  today they are not according to you
  
  i hear differently
  theres also the lib dem factor which with a new leader although never going to do enough will take seats as the protest party which will affect the outcome
  
  question still is being asked out there, can you trust the conservatives
  the answers still no at the moment
  to many people were hit by them last time and people dont forget
  so apathy will probably be the winner
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith I am having some difficulty in following the point that you are making.
  
  I expect the Conservatives to win the next election by a good margin. You should catch up a bit with what is happening as it seems as if you remain on the same track from pre-Brown and pre-Cameron. Look at what is coming accross in the media, look at polls, listen to what is being said and you will find things have changed markedly.
  
  People are treating Cameron as PM in waiting in a way that none of our last three leaders have been treated. Make no mistake the media perception is important as it will impact on the public conciousness at the election that I do not expect before 2010.
  
  Those in your 'circle' may be saying something different, at least to you, but that does not necessarily reflect the wider world. Things will never be the same again for Labour, the bubble has burst.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith and barry
  
  this government has run out of steam, i think they did a great job for about one and a half terms.
  
  the beauty of our democracy is that the voters know when it is time to change.
  
  as a nation we are very conservative with a small 'c', change takes a time.
  
  it will be 12 years in power before the change.
  
  i hope that the new incumbents have promoted their best talent to the front bench in time.
  i remember when labour came in in may 1997, they looked so fresh and vibrant, the mood of the country was lifted.
  sadly the people that have come in since, have not lived up to expectations.
• keith, dover wrote:
  Barryw
  I';m sure you hope your right, as i hope your not!
  
  we are from 2 very different view points, all im saying is, you came o n here prior to the lat general election saying labours time was up, but
  nothing changed.
  
  Its true that Gordon needs to get his ar** in gear
  as i keep saying lets wait and see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
• Guest 640 wrote:
  One area where the Labour Government, particularly under Tony Blair, was successful was in its approach to crime. It hurled oceans of cash at the problem and there can be no doubt now that this huge investment paid off. Not only here in Dover but throughout the country. I heard Sir Ian Blair (no relation to the aforementioned Tony) on the radio this very morning, in fact just moments ago, quoting his own regions statistical figures which show a huge drop over three years, much as we heard the other week in Dover about Dover. He had three reasons for this, the first and main one was the extra investment he had at his disposal which was given to him four years ago. This had a forceful impact on the criminal, the other two reasons were to do with different methods of policing brought about in fact by this very investment.
  
  So that's certainly something the Labour government can take credit for.We may pay more taxes but the results in policing and health are all too clear.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Brown has been caught lying on the state of the economy with his claim that it is 'fundamentally sound'. I know he is not the brightest spark in the world, he has shown that by his incompetence at the Treaury, but even he must be able to see what a mess things are in.
  
  There is much grim data that undermines Brown's claims
  
  The Times 21/12/2007: Gary Duncan, Economics Editor
  Claims by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling this week that the economy is fundamentally sound and well placed to ride out worsening world conditions were badly undermined yesterday by a spate of bleak official figures.
  
  City economists lined up to sound warnings that the latest grim economic news suggested that Britain's economy is badly exposed to a global downturn and “dangerously unbalanced”.
  
  In a double blow to an increasingly embattled Chancellor, the slew of worrying data showed the Government's finances in the red to a record extent last month, and the country as a whole living far beyond its means, with another record-breaking deficit on the balance of payments.
  
  “The latest flurry of UK data painted a distinctly ugly picture of a dangerously unbalanced economy, supporting our view that the coming slowdown will be a prolonged and potentially painful period of adjustment,” said Jonathan Loynes, of Capital Economics...
  
  business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3080574.ece
  
  I have been warning for sometime that Brown not all he was cracked up to be. The slide has only just started and the economy will be the death blow to his Government.
  
  
• keith, dover wrote:
  barryw
  you got it so badly wrong last election
  so lets wait and see who the public decide are better
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So, Keith.
  
  What sources (non-Government) do you have that contradict the Times economic editor?
  
  What basis do you have to claim the economy is in good shape?
  
  You keep repeating the same mantra rather than address the point raised....
  
  Blind faith seems to be the only case you provide to defend your Government and that is no argument at all.....
• keith, Dover wrote:
  you got it so badly wrong last time and im trying to save your feelings
  
  
  an economist and financial expert was on BBC just now saying everything is ok and the predicted downturn is unikely to happen
  
  
  so there you have it 2 sides to every story
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So, Keith, who was this and exactly what did he say?
  
  Actually, I tease, I think I know exactly what he was saying. He said that he thought that we would avoid a recession. The 'downturn' is a fact hence the need to cut base rates and the expectation of more rate cuts to try to head off a recession. The money supply has been inflated and that bodes ill for inflation, the economy is in trouble.
  
  The problem was that Gordon Brown was spending and borrowing when he should have been putting aside reserves for the bad times. He kept the illusion of an strong economy by floating it on a sea of debt but that cannot continue forlong and the price is to be paid.
  
  A snippet that will cheer you up (not!)
  
  A blue tide of Conservative support is spreading into Labour's heartlands, according to new analysis carried out by ICM for the Guardian. The data suggests that David Cameron may be beginning to build an election-winning platform by making progress in the Midlands and the north of England.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  A bit more info on the above, lifted direct from the Guardian, it makes interesting reading, encouraging to Tories and very worrying to Labour because for the Conservatives a 1% gain in the North is worth much more than just piling up votes in the South.
  
  Combining data from all ICM polls since Brown called off plans for a general election in October makes it possible to assess the state of opinion across the country. The research indicates that Tory support has surged outside its traditional areas of strength in southern England. The party is now hard on Labour's heels in the north, at 38% against Labour on 40%. That is a 12-point climb since ICM last carried out a regional assessment in August.
  
  Labour support has dropped seven points in the north. In the Midlands and eastern England the Tories have climbed eight points since August, now leading Labour, 48% to 32%.
  
  In the south the Tory lead is a commanding 30 points, 53% to 23% - but the party has climbed only five points since August, half as big as the increase in the north. In London, Labour leads by one point, 39-38, against a 14-point lead found by ICM in August.
  
  Only in Scotland and Wales has the Tory revival faltered, up only three points since the summer. But Labour is trailing the SNP by three points, 39% to 36%, in Scotland.
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  I thought the latest in Scotland was vote SNP was a vote for SNP or tory???
  
  who would ever have thought it!!!
  
  Barry you can dream about this North revival but the tide will never change to Tory they recall the damage done last time
  interesting you quote polls when in your favour, but discount them when there not.
  lets wait and see
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I see Gwyn Prosser is rightly miffed by a letter The Dover Mercury published which attacked him personally but was published without a signature....published in fact under the usual "name and address supplied" cobblers. This is surely unacceptable for a newspaper to publish anonymous attacks on public figures and especially so when they are personal. Its all too easy and even cowardly to hide in anonimity in these cases and a newspaper shouldnt encourage it.
  
  As Gwyn said in his letter of complaint, published in the current Mercury
  "MP's expect to bear the brunt of critical comment from time to time"
  
  Which is fair enough but critics should put their names on the thing or the editor should forget it. I appreciate there can sometimes be sensitive situations and reasons but nevertheless it should be a taboo.
  
  The personal attack was about post office closures.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Interesting debates.......sometimes I think it is pointless arguing about the economy, as it goes up and down and has upturns and downturns in a fairly organic sort of way, and stats can say whatever the person reading them wants to extrapolate. At its most basic, the economy is a success when it achieves something that gains votes (and therefore power) from the target group and a failure when the votes are lost to the opposition, and the votes are won mainly by the popular interpretation of the stats........what power belongs to the media!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i have long argued against this "name and address supplied" bit.
  
  if people do not have the courage of their convictions, they should not be allowed to air an opinion in print.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes entirely with you there Howard...100%. Despite all the flak Gwyn still goes right on winning time after time. Three elections now, three wins. Is that a record for Dover? Im just wondering aloud.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Up to a point the concept of Name and Address Supplied ahould be challenged, but ballots are generally anonymous, and for good reason - if people are exposed to ridicule or challenge they may be less likely to vote, and if people who are fearful or shy are unable to conceal their identity they may be less likely to voice an opinion which might be valuable and which they have a right to voice. However, Mr Prosser equally has the right to respond, and in my experience is open to discussion and very welcoming. Perhaps he deserves better.......
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  you are right there, GP is out on his own in kent for electoral success.
  we live in an island of red ina sea of blue.
  
  bern
  surely the ballot box is enough for anonymity.
  if someone is making a personal attack, they should be made to give their details.
  good to see you posting here and promoting healthy debate though.
• Matt Friend, Dover wrote:
  PaulB, 3 general elections is not a record for Dover. In fact, it's quite typical. Dover has a habit of sticking with an MP for a while, and only changing at the "big elections", like '45, '64, '97.
  
  Interesting what Howard says about Gwyn being the only one in Kent likely to win. I hold out hopes for Chatham, especially since Gordon Brown promoted Jonathan Shaw, and Gillingham Conservatives have introduced a defector parachute (a chap that stood in Horsham for Labour in 2005!), so Paul Clarke could hang on. The new seat of Rochester is up for grabs, but the tories are notionally a few points ahead there at the moment. Keep one eye on Canterbury too - it's a solid Tory seat but depending on how the labour-libdem switchers go, we could see a dramatic drop in Julian Brazier's majority. Also, don't underestimate Steve Ladyman in Thanet South - if polls stay as they are he could win by a whisker (without the need for Nigel Farage to nick 4,000 tory votes!)
  
  This will be the closest election in years - very interesting for the hack.
  
  Across the pond is fascinating too. Looked like Hillary had it in the bag, then Barak Obama does well with his promises on healthcare. It it often said that Bill Clintion was the first black president of USA, and Hillary has inherited alot of the African American vote, but will Barak Obama just be too tempting in the poorer districts? Even Republicans are coming round to his positive style and message of hope.
  
  Food for thought. ;)
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good to see you back posting matt, you always keep us on our toes.
  
  i know it is not relevant to dover, but i find the US primaries interesting(for a first time).
  i like the sound of the chap opposing hilary clinton, but hope that if he is succesful it is not due the pigmentation of his skin.
  
  i find the term "black vote" offensive.
  my experience of ethic minorities is that they vote for the same reasons as the rest of us.
  sadly, i think that there are some parts of our cousins country, that still vote on such issues as race and colour.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Thanks for that info Matt re the sitting MP and the prospects for others in the region. I suspect Gwyns 'reign' will not be interrupted by the next election. Although Tory Charlie Elphicke is working hard and is genuinely affable he has a difficult task before him. I imagine change comes about, as you say, when people are seriously fed up with the party in power and although Labour have been in power for a long time, a fed up factor has not kicked in as yet..which is quite extraordinary. Gwyn appears to be doing a good job, is very busy and active at Westminster, and has the confidence of the local voters.
  
  Howard yes in terms of American elections the commentators still refer openly to the 'black vote'. I heard Justin Webb of the BBC do just that this morning. The 'black vote' has been talked about even as far back as JFK. He had massive support from the black vote. I dont know. Maybe its a sign of racial maturity and advancement that we are able to say it in such a way now.
  
  NOTE: we are changing this page very shortly to make it easier. The idea is to have all the latest posts at the top of the page rather than add them on at the bottom. This should work better in this thread.
• keith, wORKING as an elected volunteer for priory, maxton and elms vale wrote:
  Paulb/Howard
  Its refreshing to read that not everyone supports Barryw in his view that the Tories are the ONLY party around.
  
  Even better to read that Gwyn is likely to remain in office.
  Its what i'v been trying to tell people on this and other forum's.
  Thats not to say the tory new boy locally isn't a threat, he is, but hre remains fairly unknown, and gwyn will probably win because of the good job hes already done.
  
  k
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I really do believe that Keith, PaulB etc are underestimating or trying to ignore the massive shift in the public perception of the Government and Brown in particular.
  
  Gwyn, as an MP, is utterly useless, out of his depth and ineffectual.
  
  There is no salvation for Labour locally. We have an interesting political year ahead in which Brown's weaknessses will become ever more apparent as will the mess he made of the economy...
  
  Labour, including Gwyn, are on the slide, make no mistake.
• Matt Friend, Dover wrote:
  Yet again, fantastically sweeping statements from Barry. I'm glad you backed up what you said with facts, and carefully explained why you could justify specific attacks on Gwyn...
  
  It's comforting to know that whenever I do hear people repeat the sort of baseless guff that Barry does, they too cannot justify their comments (or if they do attempt to it's either self contradictory or based on a false premise).
• Matt Friend, Dover wrote:
  Just a quick word on the phrase "the black vote". As far as I understand, it's not meant to insinuate that Black Americans are fundamentally different human beings to any other ethnic American identity, rather it should be understood in the same way as "the grey vote", "the evangelical vote", "the gay vote", "the young vote", "the working class vote" etc...
  
  No-one is suggesting that any of the above groups vote in unison, but for whatever reason there are very clear trends. In a two party system like America the swing states can be won or lost on just a few thousand votes, and the right policy targeted in the right neighbourhoods could be the difference. Some people understandabley find targeted campaigns disingenuous, or as Howard says "offensive", but they are a fact of life and are here to stay.
  
  Barack Obama says at every given opportunity that he wants to appeal to *all* people regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, etc.... but the cynic in me wonders if it's necessary to refer to Matin Luther King quite as often as he does at his (mainly white) rallies. Also funny how Hillary has had the opportunity to mention how she's a woman once or twice in this campaign...
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Matt - I was opposite Gwyn on DDC when he was elected to that body in 1987, he was out of his depth even at that level.
  
  You can try to talk him up all you want and rubbish the contrary opinion. That is your right. When it comes down to it though, GP has been fortunate in his timing getting in on the back on Conservative unpopularity after 18 years in power and staying there during a difficult period for us, during the Premiership of the Great Pretender. We have a different ball game now.
  
  The pendulum at last is swinging back, Brown's weaknesses are exposed and with him GP.
• keith, Working as an elected volunteer for priory, maxton, and elms vale wrote:
  Matt;
  welcome back, nice to hear another labour voice.
  you wi.ll know at NO TIME were there indstructions from the labour party to stop posting on this site, and i never did! you to contributed so needed to correct barryw on that.
  
  With regard to Gwyn, he s here to stay, and whilst barry like the last 3 elections stated tories were going to romp home, no one believed him,
  they still dont.
  obviously barryw doesnt get out much!!
  
  The labour party i know will have an effective campaigning team at the elections and will take NOTHING for granted.
  Gwyn is against an unknown, and im sure there will be a bit of a protest vote, but if the tories cant win with some of the realy big issues going on in the country/Dover area in past 3 elections then they wont win now.
  
  They have the added problem of Vic whos clear hes standing as an indy
  indy tory??????
  baffling
  
  As iv stated i cant afford tories back, nearly lost my house last time
  
  On a last point i was elected with Gwyn and i have to say he soon rose to the challenge as a District /county cllr
  Barryw you have had many faults as a cllr which i wont highlight here
  but i was there!!!!! and who is helped by these attacks?
  no one
  
  
  Roll on the election(again) 4th time of a labour govt and Gwyn
  keith
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  matt
  i have not followed the US primaries as closely as you clearly have.
  
  your comments about using martin luther king and being a woman by the 2 main candidates is dissapointing.
  
  i have seen this type of card played in the past in areas that i have lived.
  i am one of you(black,brown,female,churchgoer) etc.
  it does not work here, i hope that the american electorate see through it.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  matt
  my last last was a bit obtuse.
  my feelings were not against your comments, but against sections of the american electorate.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well Hilary Clinton beat the opinion polls in New Hampshire and won through. Obama was odds on favourite after his success in Iowa, and with all the opinion polls in his favour it looked comfortable, but politics can be full of surprises and just when we were thinking opinion polls are never wrong..whooosh! Hilary bounces back bigtime and fools not only her rivals but the pollsters too, and comes out on top.
  
  Back on the homefront local Liberal pin up boy Nick Clegg made his debut as leader on PMQ. TV and radio pundits in advance reckoned he would be nervous but he sailed through with fresh faced flying colours. He asked why the poorest amongst us seem to pay the most for their energy through assorted power company hairbrained schemes. Gordon Brown uttered some token utterences of care.But Clegg did okay.
  
  But again Gordon looked unsure. Cameron seemed to tower above him, around him, and about him. Sadly Gordon is no Tony Blair and may well be needing to take advice from the former wunderkid performer. As William Hague said today... "Blair was so good it was like trying to nail jelly to a wall". Im afraid we dont have that luxury/problem ( depending on the side youre on) with Gordon as its too easily done...in his case its like nailing a plank of wood to the wall!
• Guest 641 wrote:
  It was great to see that the pollsters and sceptics with egg on their faces following the 'shock' result in New Hampshire last night, Hillary Clinton came in with the goods, by overturning Barack Obama's predicted second win. One thing that I learnt this morning was that it took 6 losses until Bill Clinton took 'first blood'.
  I've got a feeling that we won't know for sure until 'Super Tuesday' (ie February 5th), when you take into account that 22 states of the union including some regions where she has her largest core support, will be nominating their candidate to run for the presidency. With sabres drawn betwix 'the battle for the first black president and the first lady president' for the Democrats, this is going to be an interesting race for the White House. I wonder which candidate the Republicans will choose for the running as I hear that John McCain is already running short of cash at this early stage?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the US election has all the makings of a very good soap opera, with all the surprises at the beginning.
  
  i understand that the mccain cove is 71 years old.
  
  how will a nation like our friends, the sceptic tanks, get around this problem with their obesssion with youth.
  
  incidentally, on a more serious note, that hilary clinton uses the same hairdressers as her husband, i shudder to think what their combined hair spray emissions do to the ozone layer.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  After the Christmas and New Year lull the political heat is picking up again and the heat will increasingly be on Gordon Brown in what will be a critically important year for his Premiership.
  
  The Hain affair shows that Brown's accident prone tendancy is continuing. Accident prone maybe, or perhaps he is just a poor picker of people, maybe he just exercises bad judgement, probably a mix of all these.
  
  What will be the issue that will kill off his Government of course, as always is the economy. I have often said that he was not as good as he is cracked up to be and I can see from my professional role just how he has messed up personal finances and he is directly to blame for that. It was he who ignored good advice over pensions, tax-free savings and not to mention gold sales....
  
  In a speech to the London School of Economics today, George Osborne will begin his campaign to kill Brown's ill founded reputation once-and-for-all. He will accuse the First Lord of the Treasury of squandering ten good economic years and of failing to prepare Britain for the tougher times now arriving:
  
  "Our competitors used the fat years to prepare for the lean years. Britain did not. We are the least prepared country in the developed world to cope with the current financial turbulence. [Gordon Brown] didn't fix the roof when the sun was shining. His 11 budgets have left us with the worst public finances in Europe."
  
  Make no mistake chickens (free range hopefully!!!!) are coming home to roost over the economy. He has kept the economy afloat only on a sea of public and private debt, creating a smoke and mirrors pretence of good stewardship - it cannot continue.
  
  
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  BarryW - if our political scene is a new ball game, it must be Golf - people walking the same course apparently good friends but taking every opportunity to disconcert and disadvantage each other and playing to win........
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I see Peter Hain is not making himself available for interview to the media. Normally a high profile lover of the limelight is Peter, but now since his dodgy looking finance dealings he is uncharacteristicly low profile. Does this mean he has something to hide.
  
  I dont know...is his smile always a little too wide, is his tan always a little too ..ermm brown, would you buy a used car from him, likeable as he is?
  
  You or I certainly wouldnt misplace £103,000 but he did, or at least he didnt account for it, but something smells like bad fish here. These guys live a fairly privileged life and how hard can it be to be honest and upfront in all dealings.
• howard mcsweeneyType your name here..., dover wrote:
  never had any respect for the man, just a careerist.
  
  i remember when he started out, disrupting rugby and cricket matches, with good motives, i have to admit.
  came to england, joined the liberals, then realised his future was much more lucrative with the labour party.
  
  he was at the forefront of us ditching the pound, arguing that he could not understand
  the emotional tie to it.
  he would say that, having dumped and forgotten his own country.
• Bern, dover wrote:
  I saw Hain and G Brown on the news earlier and was struck again by the lack of credible politicians and parties who might claim my vote. The World has gone corporate.....everything is a business proposition and Values appear to be low on the priority list. Or is it just me.......?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bern I sympathise with you there. The politicians at the top dont change very often and the front benches often have the rather stale look of ancient incumbents half asleep. It would take dynamite to shift some of them. This is not engaging for the public looking at the same old faces. For example Harriet Harman is there surely since biblical times, and likewise with Theresa May. The public have a notoriously short attention span and having to look at these two( and others) since the era of John the Baptist or whoever is just toooo much for most.
  
  However let me suggest the LibDems. Saw them at Prime Minister's Questions the other day, the new Bill and Ben of politics, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. They seem fresh face, innocent, and above all clean, and may be able to offer new hope.
  
  Im not a LibDem myself but I can see how people might find them an attractive alternative right now.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Ouch! Ken.
  
  That more than anything demonstrates how ill-served Dover has been by its MP. I dont doubt that what you said was the tip of the iceberg.
  
  I said he was out of his depth and pretty useless as an MP but I will resist the temptation to be less charitable!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah Ken, Ken, you are putting me in a difficult position with that one. Ive never had to delete anything since we revamped and was hoping I wouldnt have to, but am concerned about that posting, as there are suggestions of lying and so forth, and one persons fib is another persons truth, its never conclusive, and the posting is also a bit nasty.
  
  I think fair criticism is fine but am concerned when it goes too far. You make great postings and of course this is another one but.....difficult!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i can see your problem here paul, blue ken has certainly made a strong posting.
  
  it is important to know the truth, but i expect that like the town council issue, we will all be left in the dark.
  i did not know that our keef had objected to the reselection of gp.
  
  i find it worrying how little the rest of us proletariat know about the running of our town.
• Guest 687 wrote:
  Paul. There is nothing in my posting that is not accurate and that I would defend any litigation that ensues.
  You can get the measure of the man by his press release on the front page, he is said to be leading a delegation to Westminster but blames the Tory led regional assembly for failure to date. What was thepoint of that except to point score?
  You may consider my postings as attacks upon Mr Prosser, I consider them as exposing a man who in my opinion is not fit to represent this Town, after all this thread is political comment.
  The local Labour Party couldn't intimidate and manipulate me when a member so they certainly can't do it now.
• keith, working as\a volunteer for priory, maxton and elms vale wrote:
  firstly
  can i say iv borrowed my boys\ computer whilst hes at school so i dont have long.
  
  
  ken;
  you quote what i said to you, but NEVER defend them!!! your stupid phone calls to me at 8am saying you are going to NATIONAL press over comments you assumed I had said(with no proof!!) were beyond a joke.
  this carried on till the evening! with stupid texts from you.
  did you go further no you didnt cos as you know there wasnt any proof. as it didnt happen.
  
  now let me move on to the Gwyn Issue
  The comments i made(and i will explain them) are no different to when you told me you wanted to string roger up, you were out to get him(as though i should know?) that was your affair, i work even now with roger and your sudden change was a surprize to say the least.
  
  on Gwyn i told you that at union Level and at local level everyone has a right to choose if they want the candidate to go for reselection.
  It was my opinion that no matter who the candidate we should have a right to vote them in or out and in this case the majority decided that gwyn should not have to face reselection i should add that all union branches, and labour party branches also voted that gwyn did not need to face reselection, whilst i dont feel this to be healthy for the labour party i do except democracy.
  
  so there you have it as usual i have nothing to hide
  instead of accusing and laying idle threats i come out with concrete replies
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Boys.......boys. Steady on......
• Ken, Buckland wrote:
  Keith. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the first part of your posting. You give no dates, times or substance but I do accept your explanation of your freedom of choice.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Is it any wonder this country is in such a mess when public figures have petty squabbles on a public forum? I know what Keith is referring to but I'm not getting involved. There are two sides to every argument but some things are best thrashed out in private because they only concern the people involved - not the rest of us.
  Ken and Keith both know what this latest dispute is about and should meet for a drink or something and work out their differences. No-one will lose face then and hopefully they can shake hands and forget about it. Both these guys do a lot for Dover and I hate to see them squabbling!
  
• keith, working as a volunteer for prory maxton and elms vale wrote:
  jacqui
  thanks for the comments, I dont do argueing
  just stating facts, Ken knows full well to what I refer but of course doesnt wish it to be public.
  but lets move on, as you say jacqui its of no interest to anyone else
  its actually of no interest to me!
  just pointing out that ken blows hot and cold
  k
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Lets move on....
  
  I see something really quite astonishing in the media today.
  
  Gordon brown has been pleading with the Parliamentary watchdogs to 'spare' his Minister, Peter Hain, from resigning.
  
  Why? because it was not corruption but incompetence (his words).
  
  OK well, its fine in Gordon Brown's book to have incompetent Ministers as long as they are not corrupt.
  
  It does figure after all. Gordon did not exactly show any competence or good judgement when he ignored advice and sold off gold reserves and destroyed the pensions base. He, after all, has only managed to keep the economy afloat in a sea of debt.
  
  Still, its an amazing thing for any PM to say and tells us a lot about him and his Government.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i must admit i guffawed when i saw that comment from the PM.
  
  i feel sorry for gordon, he seems to be lumbered with a bunch of incompetents.
  the ex PM had better people around him most of the time.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Question Time simpered back into new year life last night with a moderately interesting panel Jacqui Smith Home Secretary, Liam Fox Conservative, Chris Hulme Liberal Democrat as the political quotient, if thats the right word, and along with them the political editor of the Mirror and a conservative PPS. All the current topics were discussed from Peter Hain down, but I suppose the most interesting topic was the pay awards, for both the Police and the Members of Parliament.
  
  There was some disgruntlement expressed that the police have been treated very badly by the government and who can argue with that. In a year when their performance has been very good and even record breaking, they somehow end up being penalised with a fairly poor pay award of only 1.9%. Of course they are not allowed by law to strike, but if they were they would. If the Police was a main stream business, and indeed if they were higher management, they would be rewarded very substantially for their successes, but alas it just does not happen that way with public sector workers.
  
  At a recent Neighbourhood Forum meeting we saw how the police in Kent have performed very well and particularly so here in Dover. I think we did publish statistics elsewhere on this site. Let us hope their continuing performance wont suffer as a result of them being poorly treated by the current government. Morale seems low now with the police, following this pay award, and a police service with low morale is not something any of us can afford. They wanted a measly 2.5% but got an even measlier 1.9%.
  
  On the other hand MPs, who bizarrely vote for their own pay rise( if only we could all do that!) want 2.6%. Why the difference for them!? Some however are now edging towards a more harmonious 1.9%. Our own MP Gwyn Prosser according to the Dover Express, is happy to accept the lower option. Some wags in the audience last night compared the percentage settlement differences between the two bodies with guffaws of unjustified mirth!
  
  (Government Minister Harriet Harman said later last night that MP's voting for their own pay awards wont be allowed to continue.)
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sounds as if they are about to steal another Conservative policy then, Paul...
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i am actually quite warming to the idea of making my own pay award.
  the mp's have certainly set us an example.
• keef, working as a volunteer for residents of priory, maxton, and elms vale wrote:
  setting owN PAY DEAL
  cor how this could get out of control.
  
  interesting debate
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Government has won the first vote in its quest to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. What's that I hear you ask? Well its the watered down 'working document' for the European Union's future. The Lisbon Treaty replaced the bombed out unwanted and unloved Constitution, which is now dead in the water.
  
  Fair enough. The European Union, big and powerful that it is, needs a working agreement among nations. What can be wrong with that? The Tories continue to oppose it and keep pushing for a referendum on it.
  
  Now for heavens sake..they are so not in touch with the real world. How many people in Dover would turn out for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Yes you're right...not many. Unless perhaps if it was whipped up into an anti european anti immigration frenzy. Unlikely though, as people appear mostly apathethic on these things.
  
  IN a referendum like that, the only people with any motivation to vote would be those passionately against any liaison with Europe and yes there are a few of those around. Yes indeed they would turn out. Everyone else would stay at home. Thats why the Government dont want a referendum. By its very nature, the result would be lopsided and not give an accurate picture.
  
  I dont know why the Conservatives continue this anti European stance, they have already lost three elections spouting this anti european message.
• John, Dover wrote:
  I feel that you are right PaulB, as the populace seem to have drifted into an apathetic stance as far as voting on any european politics which lean towards Lisbon, we are part of an ever expanding european community and there is no going back to pre-euro community times.
  
  
• keith, elected to represent local residents as a volunteer in priory, maxton, elms vale wrote:
  John/Paulb
  At last people are starting to realise,
  times have moved on, whilst people don't go out to vote in high numbers in many elections(let alone european elections)
  things have moved on
  
  
  Can I just say on an aside
  I do like most of this letters page
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB.
  
  The EU is OK IF, you want a European Superstate run from Brussels, mired in red tape and rules run by failed domestic politicians. If you think Government knows best and believe that your should be the servant of Government, doing its will, obeying the rules. If for you the social model of the Soviet Union is what you admire with an economy increasingly run on a 'command basis' within set rules with risk and enterprise limited so that even that one day will resemble more the Soviet model, thats OK.
  
  If, however, like me, you prefer freedom from petty rules. If you want to run your own life, take your own risks and accept the rewards. If you want the decisions to be made about your life to be made a close to you as possible, preferably by yourself then the EU has no place in your life.
  
  The EU is bad news for Britain and we need to re-negotiate our relationship with it and take back many of the powers ceded to them.
  
  The Government promised a referendum in the election on the powers being handed to the EU in the Reform Treaty. They have reneged on the excuse that it is a Treaty not a Constitution. That is no more than splitting hairs because even Giscard D'Estang who authored the rejected Constitution says the Treaty has the same effect.
  
  The Government is pulling a con trick on the public for the simple reason that they do not think the treaty will ratified by a referendum. Why, we because nothing must stand in the way of Tony Blair becoming President of the EU Superstate and that was part of his deal with Gordon Brown.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  if this treaty is so wonderful, why do they not give us an opportunity to rubber stamp it with a vote?
  
  if this matter is allowed to drop, some dodgy politician will say why do we need a vote on the currency, and so it goes on,
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I don't think it is a watered down version PaulB, there were only minor changes made to it for it be become a Treaty, so in effect, it IS the old Constitution.
  
  I have the same view as Barry on this - our major laws should be made by us, not anyone else. Small government - BIG People.
  
  The public need to be informed much more than they are being and in an honest way - but how can there be honest discussion when we've already had our future signed away to Brussels.
  
  People are already (by your own posting) thinking, what is this all about ? a Lisbon Treaty, doesn't concern me - but it does and it will.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The world is commercial shrinking into 5 or so economic super powers..you have the USA, the EU, China, Japan and the Far East, and now India. You can no longer afford to think small. You must be part of a large block to carry some global weight, to trade well and make money.
  
  In ordinary daily life businesses join TCM, or the Chamber of Commerce, or the Loyalty Scheme, to network, to trade, to have a louder voice, to be part of a weighty organisation. This same economic principle applies to us belonging to the EU. The solitary voice is naked and alone now, and nobody hears it anymore.
  
  Only yesterday Mr Barroso, head of the EU, flexed some EU muscle in relation to the Green Issue. The Americans ignore the Green issue, the Europeans do not. But being Green costs money. Our European bisinesses have the burden of these additional costs while the Americans dont. Therefore we are not all operating on a level playing field. This can cause us here in Europe to commercially suffer simply for doing the right thing on greenhouse gases. The Americans stick two fingers up to greenhouse gases and romp ahead unburdened by extra taxes or costs, although some change may be afoot.
  
  Now the EU has threatened trade tarrifs against the American goods produced in this devil may care way and the Americans will listen...why?, because the EU has a huge marketplace of unfathomable riches and the US needs that market bigtime.
  
  Imagine a solitary UK making such a stand against the US and hoping to make a difference. Would anybody care...No! its too small in global terms.
  
  This is just one example why being part of the bigger EU picture is vital in the new world.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The world has indeed moved on Paul and the world in not adopting the EU model for Trade. Look at what the various other international trade organisations are doing and you will see that have stayed well clear of the oppressive EU way of doing things.
  
  The problem here is not the matter of free trade but in the EU quest to form the European Superstate. A centrally controlled Soviet style model is not the way forward.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I was just reflecting this morning on the economic shaping of the new world ( as you do!) as I mentioned in my previous posting. Isn't it amazing in a way that Africa, a continent of untold riches, never emerged into anything significant. They bundle along from chaos to disaster and have done seemingly for ever. They somehow dont seem to have the capability to progress. We in the west, mostly their white brothers, have through the centuries poured money into the length and breadth of it, and what have they given us in return..terrible chaos, awful pestilence, heartbreaking famine, miserable corruption, war, and mass murder on a grand scale.
  
  One of my first memories in school as a tiny child was the "Penny for the Black Babies" as run by the Nuns. Now thats going back all of my ermm.. 39 years, and okay maybe a bit more. And Ive been contributing ever since and Im sure you have too with "Feed the World!" etc etc. In the "Penny for the Black Babies" days Ireland was poor itself, it was in those days, and cant have been much richer than Africa, yet we still forked out and the missionaries went with food etc etc.
  
  Yet today it seems that no progress was ever made. It still consumes money from the West at an alarming rate, and still gets absolutely nowhere.It still has trouble holding elections, and cannot govern itself to any degree of success without death and destruction. It remains the dark continent in the darkest of pits.It will never be a player on the world's economic stage.India and China emerge but Africa flatlines.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Ah, the Penny for the Black Babies - the nuns were too scary to refuse.........
• Beth, st rads wrote:
  love all the bickering on here noticed mostly all blokes doing it. Im new on here and not a Ken trantor fan! where have all the new councillors gone? where i live the two who were elected have gone into hiding thinking of putting up missing person posters for them. I still think dover will go down the pan more due to Keith sansum leaving.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Beth - What to some seems as bickering to other can be interesting debate and exchange of views. Do you have any strong opionions on subjects that you can share and discuss with us?
  
  Anyway.........
  
  PaulB. You make an interesting point about Africa. Indeed I have often asked myself the self same question. Africa has got much by way of natural and mineral resources and could be a rich continent.
  
  The only explanation that I can see is how tribalism has kept the peoples of Africa divided and at war with each other. The Mongols had Ghengis Khan who united them and built an empire. We had Alfred the Great to resist the Danes and help forge a nation.
  
  The nearest to these charasmatic leaders the Africans had was Shaka Zulu. He was as savage and bloodthirtsy as he was a visionary but he was too little too late. He built the Zulu nation but after his death they lost the vision and leadership. Then a stronger 'tribe' arrived on the continent.
  
  The ruins of ancient Zimbabwe show that there was once at least one settled civilisation on the continent but no-one knows for sure who and why that society ended. There has been some wild and often crazy theories about the founding of Zimbabwe, ranging from Roman survivors of Mark Anthony's legions to a link with King Solomon's mines but no-one really knows.
  
  Before white men ever landed on that continent it was a mess of warring tribes. European settlers arrived at The Cape in South Africa before the black Bantu tribes who were spreading south did, to find only a few 'hottentots', described as a 'yellow' race, who were then devastated and nearly wiped out by disease.
  
  Africa was then of course carved up by the Europeans. I know this is an unfashionable view but I really do believe that where 'Pax Britannica' held sway the indiginous people enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in Africa. When we then retreated from empire tribal conflict arose yet again in country after country under 'self-rule'.
  
  We need only look at what has happened in (the country now called) Zimbabwe, formerly Southern Rhodesia. It was once the breadbasket of Africa, wealthy and prosperous under British rule and now the people there are starving beggars under a brutal and repressive regime.
  
  I now fear for the long term future of South Africa. We will see.
  
  Sorry to go on - an interesting subject from which we can get much debate....
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Tribalism isn't exclusively black african, either - see how it dominates the six counties of the North of Ireland.........
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Good posting Barry and very true.
  
  My older brother lived in Rhodesia from 1969 to 1980 and when he came back he said that Mugabe would win the election because he had a better terrorist regime - and he won because he did have then and still does have today 27 years later.
  
  When I say terrorists I mean terrorists against the other black people there, not against the whites, whom he had fought a terrorist war for several years.
  I agree that it would depend on what side of the fence you are, as to whether you'd look at them as freedom-fighters or terrorists.
  
  I can say though that the blacks, even though disenfranchised, were better off under Ian Smith, than they have ever been under Mugabe - better health, better education, better employment and standard of living.
  
  Corruption is the biggest blight of Africa - whenever any one takes over leadership of a country, they treat their subjects as their property, similar to how the old chiefs used to think.
  
  I have been sent some photos of Robert Mugabe's "Palace" he has had built in Harare - the opulance is obscene; he is living like this and he is starving his people to death. Inflation is around 2000%, he has destroyed all the homes of those who do not vote for him and grabbed all the productive "white" farms - those who were feeding the country, and given it to his cronies, who haven't got a clue about farming, consequently there is now very little or no food being grown or produced anywhere there.
  
  I'll send these photos to Paul - I have already send them to the BBC who have shown them and had a discussion about them; I've also sent them to one of the Nationals.
  
  I have read many books on Southern Africa, from the earliest times up to the middle of the 19th. Century, as well as books on the Boer War and more recent.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i remember as a 5 year old at school lookin at a map of africa and seeing all the straight lines(borders).
  
  i thought these africans must be clever, all the maps of europe were squiggly.
  
  it was only years later i discovered that the colonial powers had "drawn the straight lines", without regard to tribal lands or cultures.
  
  not an excuse for genocide, just reminding people of our forebears lack of
  understanding.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Well after being off line for over 1month I am back,it is good to see so many new forumites and you old ones too
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Just in case any of you have forgotten me,I am not only the above but yes I am the man from the Ticket Office at Dover Priory
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good to see you back john, the voice of sanity.
• keith, working as a volunteer for priory wrote:
  Beth(whoever you are)
  thankyou for your kind words.
  
  there are a handful of cllrs who work hard in each council,
  we do have to except they are nearly volunteers, (some paid)
  but most have Dover District at heart.
  
  the problem I see is Canterbury/thanet/folkestone all moving forward
  whilst Dover struggles.
  
  Even now, I hope all that is being promised happens.
  
  
  but Beth
  I say again, Thankyou
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  What country has straight lines Howard - I don't know any.
  
  In many cases the borders were made using natural contours - of rivers or mountains, not many countries have straight lines - none that I know of, but I don't know them intimately, so to speak.
  
  I do agree that consideration of tribes was not a consideration when these boundaries were drawn up; may be it should have been, but every where in Africa, tribalism comes to the fore and people of opposing tribes get brutalised and corruption takes over.
  Kenya, considered a model country until recently, had corrupt elections and through tribalism (and corruption) thousands of people are now dying.
  
  If the whites had not gone to Africa at all, where do you think the black africans would be now ?
  
  When the whites first colonised the Cape area, there were no settled blacks there, the native black Africans were nomadic, so wandered all over the place.
  The first black/white contact was through trade and as the trade increased, so did the movement of blacks to Southern/South Africa and so in time, black labour was used/bought, as it is today, as in any country- any colour labour is bought, thats why most people have jobs.
• beth, st rads wrote:
  Im back. Thats ok Keith you are very welcome you worked hard for what you stood for and you are an honest person unlike some (mention no names). Thought i would post what a torist to Dover was heard saying earlier. This is sad Dover used to be better than Folkestone and Canterbury it is a shame that it has been left to rot although it welcomes criuse ships and is famous for its white cliffs its a real let down. So there you have . I felt so ashamed to say i was a dovorian.
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Barry Williams. Dont get me started i have so many views of things good and bad about Dover and strong opinions i would be here all day.
• Guest 656 wrote:
  I've just been reading all the very interesting comments on the African economic situation, shure it brings back some memories when PaulB & also Bern mentioned ' Penny for the Black Babies'. When I was a small child I remember feeling an enormous sense of pride when I saw the nuns sending the massive jars full of pennies off to Africa on a regular basis. We were so innocent then, we thought that this would make a big difference to their lives.
  Following the news over the last couple of weeks about the unrest and financial ruin that certain african countries are facing, it makes you think if any progress has been made over the years.
• keith, working as a volunteer in priory wrote:
  Beth
  It is sad to see Dovers decline, I'm aways proud to be born in the
  'AMLETS' always a Dovorian, but to watch the decline is heartbreaking.
  
  We can live in hope that those who say better is to come all come up trumps because this is all above some of those attempting to political gain,
  This is something mch more serious, THE FUTURE OF DOVER.
  
  
  I'v said before and I will say again, DOVER DESERVES BETTER.
  K
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Hi Beth,yes things have been better in the Town than they are at the moment,look on the bright side,it can not really get worse,and very soon I know it will get better,maybe not as good as we all hope,but everyones hopes are different.
  As far as being embarrest about coming from Dover,I could put you over my knee,until people in this Town,love this Town then we will never convince anyone else,let me explain and remember I am a adopted Doverian as I was born and brought up a Sandwich,no sorry in Sandwich otherwise the comment a few slices missing will appear here,We have one of the best Castles in this Country we have Cliffs which are world famous we have some of the most varied and lovely countryside and walks,the river Dour the Seafront ne of the best of its kind,Crabble Mill Western Heights etc etc we have all the ingredients we are just waiting for someone to LIGHT THE GAS,and i think the matches are in the box.
  
  I am proud to live in this Town,do they say in Australia its lovely here but you can get eaten by Sharks or in Edinburgh it is beautiful here but its always cold or come to Florida and get flattened by a Hurricane positive thinking breeds positive thinking,negative thinking puts people off
• keith, working as an active volunteer for residents of priory wrote:
  John
  I do appreciate the comments you make, but I presume beth has lived in Dover for many a year and its realy what Dover people are saying,
  other towns prosper, while Dover declines
  im just hopeful all the positive people get it right its been a long time coming.
  
  sad but there you have it
  
  we all talk Dover up but it does become frustrating when other towns prosper around you.
  k
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Thanks for putting the photos up Paul.
  
  I have it on very good authority that the photos are genuine and were infact discussed on News 24 a couple of days ago, after sending them to the BBC.
  
  Your comments are very true and the present and the past do not auger well for a positive future there, or in fact, the whole Continent.
  
  The opulence is obscene when you consider who is living there, while all around him the country and its people are starving to death and have been made homeless and have literally nothing.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  
  Keith and John
  
  You both and many others, know that the reason Dover is behind other coastal areas goes back to the 80s when the then Chief Executive of DDC did not want Dover to have "Assisted Area Status".
  
  Thanet and others were happy to apply and receive that status and after many,many years, saw the benefits of that status coming through.
  
  Although the DTIZ had been going for a while, it is only since 2003, that it picked up some pace and really started to move forward.
  
  Greater strategic input and shouting beyond our weight, brought those bodies with money to our Town and they started to take notice.
  
  Investment was required and as with all big investments, it take a while to resolve all the issues: planning, archaeology, land-ownership, occupiers of the site - who will spend their money and come here and of course large amounts of MONEY.
  Dover District Councillors were given many presentations on what was going on and many Labour District Councillors were also Town Councillors so the Town Council would have known what was going on too (I only mention this because it may not be known that the Town Council were well aware of these developments as well).
  
  With the recent issuence of compulsory purchases for the unresolved areas (some without any consultation between the developers and owners), the land-ownership issues are now resolved.
  
  Work will start shortly on the old bus-station, when stagecoach move up to Whitfield, the Multi-Story car-park will shortly go too and the archaeologists are going to be working on the site very, very shortly.
  
  One of the major "general" problems we face, is the lack of care with the buildings we have in central Dover (as we have in the lower end of Folkestone Road); many building are of great architectural merit, but through meanness or lack of care, they have been allowed to fall into a very sad state of disrepair: the owners just don't care and being able to hide behind the data-protection act, ownership of many, remains unknown.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  It is heartbreaking to see the waste of some of the beautiful buildings we have in Dover...through neglect as well as through inappropriate restoration and rebuilding.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  My God Roger, that's the first time I have seen interior pictures taken of Mugabe's 'Palace', it is disgusting that, as you say, 'obscene opulence' is allowed in this day and age, it's like looking into a Louis XV or Emperor Napoleon's 'boudoir'. An eye-opener while his subjects starve, 'Let them eat cake' comes to mind. Off with his head!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  looks like the "harare district council" are doing better for their tenants than ddc.
  
  on a less serious note i see that one of mr mugabe's chums has been nicked today, one nicholas van hoogstraten.
  
  this evil individual, with a string of convictions for violence, here in the uk,
  is/was a close confidante of the "democratically elected" president.
  
  his behaviour in that benighted country was much the same as here, extorting money from the weak mainly.
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  To JHG
  Im only 25 lived in this town all my life and sadly i can never say that Dover has been at its best. Plenty of talk from people and hopefull plans but nothing has came from them. How long has Dovorians put up with lame excuses for the town slowly dying. We dont have much for families or teenagers here and we wont gain anything from tourists if we dont offer anything to want them to stay in the town or return. Plenty of pound shops or charity shops if you like a bargain. This town needs to come to life and quickly. We could look at other towns and citys to learn where this town is going wrong. As for you wanting to put me over your knee is that a threat or a promise? ( joking) love Beth x
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I had a walk down to the seafront today - I love the sea and the seafront, and love living here. But on the way back I tried to see it through the eyes of someone who doesn't have a committment to the area, someone who wants something back in return for a brief period of time spent here as well as some money exchanging hands.......it was a shabby and rotting town that looked back at me, the tourist. The seafront was charming, and clean and a little sexy with the breeze and the sun; the walk past Cambridge Terrace was just a walk....some interesting architecture, and de Bradleigh, if I was up for some shopping (not that you can't get that anywhere now...) and the good weather made it pleasant. But my first sights would be the monstrosity that I know we all hate and that is allegedly to be blown up, and the buildings that are shored up with deeply unattractive scaffolding and falling down around it. The floor pitted with chewing gum and fag-ends, the shops dirty and derelict coming out of the underpass, the map to the town scrunched up under the glass next to the bus stop that picks up tourists. The library, which I love incidentally, looked like a gasworks decorated with scaffolding - even more so when viewed from the Roman Painted House, which has been a "pained" house for what seems like years. Attractive buildings housing some shops were scarred by the dreadful modern buildingwork that had gone on over, above and around them. St Marys Church provided a really welcome oasis of beauty and calm - it seemed still and thoughtful in the churchyard, as if it was holding itself somewhat distant from the dereliction around it. There did not appear to be any signs indicating any places of interest or pleasure that I could have had a look at or enjoyed while I spent my brief time in Dover. If I were a tourist I guess I would be interested in the tiny church, but I am not sure I would have found it without knowing where to go, and where to have breakfast/lunch/tea/dinner? Please remember I love Dover and am committed to it, but I am disappointed by the lack of cohesion and concerted efforts that might make it a better prospect. I feel it lets us all down - people trying to make a living here, people trying to have fun here, people trying to enable their children to grow up curious and healthy with plenty to do.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Brilliant post Bern .That of course was the 100th posting on this section and a devastatingly good one it is. Sums up completely the visual state of the town as would be seen by the casual visitor. All too true.
  
  I previously lived in London prior to coming here and what is immediately apparent is the total lack of money at our local disposal. Talk about an unequal distribution of wealth. In London they find money for bridges, for theatres, for opera houses, for extravagant domes, and for gherkin shaped skyscrapers, while here we cant find a few bob to do up the crumpling structures all about us, or the will to make it happen. Look at Snoops in Castle St. For ages we all sounded off about that dump on the old forum and when they came and cut down the rampant vegetation growing on it, and scraped off the bits that were falling down from its ediface onto passersby, we were humbly thrilled to have even that basic chore done...and the protesting stopped.
  
  Easily satisfied I guess...
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Paul - thank you for your kind comments. I also lived in London for a long time, and even the shabby areas with less money to spend on fine architecture and rebuilding had colour and verve. And communities seemed to rub along better too - the Irish (I am Coming Out as an Irish woman here!) and the Jamaicans, the Puerto Ricans and the South Africans as well as the Punjabis and the Pakistanis and Sri Lankans co-habited and cohesed. I think we existed as willing lodgers on the Host Nation, and recognised our parts to play, and thus made up a whole entity based on mutual respect and not a little gratitude, on the whole. There was a scheme a while ago to decorate the wall at the beginning of Tower Hamlets on the London Road - it would have been lovely to see some colour on the streets of Dover!! What happened?!
• Beth, St rads wrote:
  So what i suggest for Dover would be.
  Family entertainment in the town like a ten pin bowling alley or ice skating centre, sea life centre. A bigger cinema with up to date movies.
  
  For the youths. a place to hang out and share their views on Dover and how they could have an input to the town.
  
  Also an entertainment centre for families and youths alike based on what towns people would want in there.
  
  The empty shops would be lovely to have a bridal shop in Dover instead of brides having to travel out of town .Folkestone is a shining example what Dover could be, with a pinch of Hastings or Dymchurch with the fun rides and games, Im open to hear anyones suggestions on how Dover could come to life. Love Beth x x
• keith, working as an elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  BETH
  For years I campaigned for a bowling alley for Dover. In the past a Cllr
  worked up all the plans, got 3 different companies to come forward to run a bowling alley at no cost to the council, it never got past the drawing board cos cllrs wouldn't go for it.
  
  That cllr had worked out all the plans, made sure council didnt loses money, Since then in my 25 years on the council, I visited schools across Dover and all of them told me they would use a bowling alley on a regular basis if there was one, instead they go to Ashford.
  
  
  I also was one of only 2 cllrs(dianne smallwood being the other)who said Dover deserves a better cinema, this to was rejected in the recnt DITZ
  project.
  
  Youth;
  I have to say on this one there is more here we may differ,
  
  There are a number YOOF outlets in Dover but maybe there should be more.
  Archers court youth centre gets 100 or so to there building, but i suppose it could be seen as a buckland, or school building(as its on the school site)
  but when i chaired the archers court youth centre, I let one of the youth chair the meeting(with my mild guidance)so it was led by the youth, for the youth(have to say the KCC officer objected to this move, but it happened!)
  
  Th councils policy to move everything out to whitfield, as i have said before will kill the small and larger shops in the town.
  and ASDA is still THINKING of coming to Dover.
  
  As iv said on here before, those people who state that Dover is about to change for the better, i hope they are correct,
  
  DOVER DESERVES BETTER
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Keith i have to admit you run lots for youth but im specking from St rads area and town these kids need somewhere to call there own, and to be kept off the streets at nite, for kids ages from 5-18 not all kids like football, some like basketball, netball, etc. I just think Dover dont offer much.
  Im glad we agree on other areas of my previous comment.
  Love Beth xx
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Im back. Keith was public opinion asked on the up sticks to Whitfield idea? Love Beth xx
• keith, working as a elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  BETH
  Thank you again for your kind comments, All I will say is that yes, I run a few clubs, but thats my nature, there are also a number of clubs running around the town run by other proffessional and volunteer groups.
  
  On your question of St Rads and football this may help for the future.
  
  I have attended a number of St Rads meetings and have to say those youths attending showed little respect for those others attending or any kind of format for the future.
  I recall at one meeting having to stop one youth from slagging off a female chair just because she was female, that was usual practice.
  
  I did spend many months at these meetings and attempted to change the format in how the group operated, but it was also questionable what constitutes a youth as one member was in his 20's with a family!
  
  I have always maintained that all sections of society should be helped
  wherever this is possible, but those that just want to be a problem those around should consider who attends.
  
  To take this one step further, i recently helped to form the priory forum activities club and the ages is clear 11 to 16
  respect is top of the agenda, everyone listened to.
  club is run in a very flexile way, but with clear boundaries.
  
  on football, although boys usually do like football, I sat all the youth down prior to opening and asked them what it was they wanted, so we only do things they want to do, rather than tell them whats best for them.
  We also do table tennis, pool, darts, we have board games, i even took on
  2 of the youth recently at chess and won!!!!
  
  We will be taking these kids to Ashford bowling centre(as Dover aint got one!!) as this was there choice, they will pay a contribution towards it(as we want kids to appreciate you get nothing, for nothing.
  So its a long answer, but we intend to build upon what we have started,
  k
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Disempowered youth with few positive role models will probably never have learned the boundaries needed for good manners. Good manners are the manners that enable people to feel comfortable, bad manners are the manners that leave people feeling uncomfortable, simple as that, and it is likely that these young people have not had the opportunity to become less self absorbed and more considerate. I am not making excuses - I never excuse poor behaviour - but in seeking the reasons we often stumble on the answers.
• keith, working as an elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  Bern
  I fully appreciate your comments, and I did spend some time wth these youth, but they were not corrected(unless i did it)therefore they carried on being disrespecful, im all for helping people, and always will, but we can look behind eveyones issues, but boundaries need to be set, and enforced or you are on a loser.
  
  every youth member can be worked with once boundaries are known
  
  
  keith
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  
  you have brought up that old one again about the bowling alley etc.
  there never was anything like that on offer.
  
  that is why only you and cllr smallwood voted against the the dtiz project.
  
  it helps you to be popular, that is all.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I rather think I was not implying that you had the responsibility to "correct" the young people, rather that we need to see the back story to the behaviour rather than just the behaviour! I have to add that one of the issues for me is that "we" (old/responsible/whatever) tend to see young people as those needing to be "worked with" - my experience is that they have something to offer as well, and having a clear agenda to "change" them does not indicate any kind of equal relationship. Clearly there are sometimes issues that need to be addressed, and valuing people whatever their age is a good start to that.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  takes me back, seeing the springer spaniel in the picture, re homed one approx 7 years ago.
  they do have a great sense of smell, emptied my food cupboard in minutes, unfortunately she had this unfortumate habit of biting people who tried to stop her doing what she wanted to do.
  
  after 3 months with her could hardly see my hand for stitches.
  had to send her for retraining and rehoming in the end.
  every time i see one now, lumbering along, i cringe.
  sad really, but i never knew her history when i took her on.
• keith, working as a volunteer for priory wrote:
  howard
  your wrong, I have nothing to be popular about im just trying to help youngsters which has always been my aim
  
  
  bern
  I understand where you come from
  and thats why i said we sat he youth down and asked them what they wanted, this was a way of engaging with them, treating them on an equal basis.
  we recognise priory still is a deprived area and these issues come into play from time to time.
  IT isnt always easy but weekly we will keep at it together it works
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  i have asked you many times on here, what the alternative offers were for the dtiz zone.
  
  you never answer, just utter your wish list.
• keith, working for the residents of priory wrote:
  howard
  I have offered more than once to meet with you which you have declined
  its all to easy to slag people off
  but there you go
  i move on
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  yes you have keith, always under your terms and conditions.
  
  would you like to tell us all here about the development plans that you and one other were in favour of?
  i suspect that this will be met with silence as per usual.
• Paul, dover wrote:
  Caption for second picture reads....."Cheska use all your not inconsiderable powers to sniff out two MPs who voted to deny the people of this country a referendum on the European constitution. Sniff this piece of clothing from the two suspects in the vicinity of the port. It should smell like something brown and distinctly horrid like you would find in a sewer.
• paul, dover wrote:
  Please accept my apologies for the last remark I made. It was a joke but I wouldn't want to bring down the tone too much. An alternative caption would read perhaps....."Why is a dogs nose in the middle of it's face? Because it's the scentre". groan.
  
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  It's very sensible to have those sniffer dogs and they are great at doing what they do, but those illegals they detect, are by then already here and we have to keep them.
  
  Why have the French in Calais, stopped using (or did they never use them ?) the heart monitors and other detectors they had, to determine if trucks had them on board ?
  
  Perhaps, cynically, they know that if they were detected in France, they would stay in France, if they aren't detected until they get to England, they'll stay in England.
  
  Immigration - both legal and illegal, was so much simpler and eminently more sensible, pre-1997.
  
  We are spending millions, perhaps billions on providing benefits for them; including NHS services, sending money back to the countries where they come from and providing them with houses and a National Insurance number, which means that they will be eligible for a pension without earning it through paying taxes.
  
  Controlled immigration for qualified people and tjhose GENUINELY fleeing persecution, is fine, no problem with that, but illegal immigration by people who only want to milk the system (and worse) is very very wrong.
  
  If all this money wasn't wasted, there would be so many things that would make life so much easier. One thing that springs to mind, is that when Tony Blair came to power in 1997, he stated it was their determined goal, to stop single-sex wards; 10 years on and nothing has changed and now one of the Labour Peers in the House of Lords has stated that is impossible and always has been, to be able to do this.
  
  So many more incidents of failure, it's hard to appreciate how we have willingly voted in these people, time after time.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Roger an interesting one there re immigration. One little gem I heard on the radio less than half an hour ago, it concerns immigration, but on a slightly different tangent...
  
  3 out of 4 babies in some areas of London are now born to foreign mothers. So in some instances the whole makeup of society, as we know it, is changing and changing very rapidly.It is now no longer the UK of old, the UK of those Ealing Comedies, the UK of regattas and cricket, the UK of "Three men in a Boat" and of picnics by the Thames..sigh! Now it seems the NHS caters entirely for foreigners in some areas, although it must be said..it is also manned by foreigners!
  
  Howard interesting one about your Springer Spaniel, it is truly amazing, is it not, that in this day of technological excellence as created by man, we still cannot surpass the gifts of the humble animal as created by God.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Staffed for and by people who do not have English as their first (and sometimes second....) language - no wonder our Elders are often in the hands of people who are unable to understand them or their needs, and unable to give them the verbal reassurances and information they need to have any quality of life. And not only Elders, but other vulnerable groups are often supported by people who have little or no grasp of their culture and precious little chance of communicating effectively.
• keith, working as an active elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  We are talking as though all these people are bad.
  
  They are not, As was said in earlier postings many other nationalities work in hospitals(and why shouldn't they?)
  
  you can go further, the railways, plus many other big industries.
  
  Iv said before, I cannot afford a conservative govt tha allows 3million to be thrown on the dole, that allows morgage rates to soar through the roof(please excuse the pun)
  that is happy for lower paid to remain lower paid, and given few rights
  
  plus much much more
  
  So im all in agreement Franch should do all it can to deter illegals crossing the channel, and England should do as much as possibl to stop illegal immigration.
  
  Customs controls may deter many in both countries maybe bringing the controls back in UK and far more?
  
  
  k
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Not bad, just inappropriate and exploited because their work comes cheap. Our Elders and vulnerable groups deserve appropriate and adequate services, and people who are themselves vulnerable and unable to communicate effectively should not be exploited for cheap and inadequate labour. We have the right to reflect that people supporting our vulnerable groups - your Mother or Father, your disabled child - should be able to communicate effectively and understand the culture in which they work, without appearing as bigots.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Let us hope that the new border force continues the exemplary work that the immigration service has had in Dover, I hear that there has been some massive coups with regard to large drug hauls just lately. It must have been a cold morning down at the eastern docks, I hope you were well wrapped up! Cheska the springer spaniel seems to be doing a great job with her handlers.
  
  Let us hope also that the French customs rethink with regard to using the X-ray machines and no longer need written permission of the illegal immigrants that they are trying to locate lol!
• Guest 656 wrote:
  A very interesting morning at the Eastern Docks with our MP Gwyn Prosser and Immigration Minister Liam Byrne. The new Border Force which comes into effect later this year will hopefully continue to stem the tide in human trafficing and drug smuggling which is a major problem for our over-worked custom and immigration officers.
  
  It was good to see the official 'drug sniffer extraordinaire' Cheska hard at work checking the lorries for illegal substances and obviously so well trained she then moved on afterwards to check out the throng of journalists accumulated there.
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Another road accident in St Rads again last nite, the driver was not to blame. i dont do names but again i have to question many things.
  
  Also where is our PCSO? he walks up barwick road from triangles to St Rads road (i live on a side road up there) never seen him up there and i come with a warning! the road i live on is out of control, the local children have no respect for others , running riot in peoples gardens, tampering with peoples cars, winding up dogs (that are in there own gardens) trying to get them to bite them, attacking windows, throwing abuse at residents, and vandalism is ripe up there. Guess what we get the classic MY KIDS DONT DO IT. The parents have no idea where the kids are again not that long ago we had a near child snacthing case up there. Its scary living up there and its getting worse.
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  Very interesting article about immigration. Still leaves me slighlty angry though after applying to join immigration and being accepted, only to be told 6 months later they no longer had the funds to take on the new staff.
  Mr Prosser did investigate and was advised the money that was going to pay for the new immigration officers had instead been spent on new technology.
  
  I still wish them good luck though.
• keith, working as an eleced volunteer for priory residents wrote:
  Beth
  This is not good, and if what you say is correct then you need to contact the police and PCSO and they need a higher presence.
  
  Keep a diary
  and descriptions always help(you dont have to confront them just details from a safe distance)
  k
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  beth makes a very important comment here.
  
  the classic " not my kids", someone elses, is bandied about too much.
  
  have they been drinking?
  
  if so, then the parents would know this the moment that their offspring
  return home.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  
  when will you name the developers that offered all these leisure facilities for our town?
  
  any councillor is free to answer this.
• keith, working in a positive manner as an elected voluntee for priory wrote:
  Howard
  Im not going to get into this NEGATIVE debate, I don't know why you feel I have upset you, I thought for years we worked closely together, why you have suddenly changed I realy dont know.
  
  If you realy want to know the 3 developers and paul Sheldrake(ex cllr)is happy to share the info with you, after all the frustration then please contact him.
  
  Just because you believe in the DITZ and I may differ, lets try to move on.
  
  The priory forum would im sure welcome your contributions as it has in the past when you attended, and we shared a lot of common aims.
  
  Why you have suddenly started sniping Is beyond me.
  
  I realy do want to resolve any differences because it does no one any good to have these snipes, when many volunteers both inside and outside the priory forum work hard for the community.
  
  Could I one last time hold out an olive branch for us to meet up with
  paul b if hes still prepared to do so.
  With no agena
  So i cant be accused of it being on my terms.
  
  
  priory deserves better than this.
  
  I will continue with other volunteers to do what we can to improve the lot of local priory residents
  
  I invite you to rejoin us, but also to this meeting with paulb as an
  observer.
  
  
  over to you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. Howard is right, your are repeating a myth.
  
  There was no serious proposal, no-one with the 'big bucks', no planning application.
  
  Have you ever seen a proper business plan?
  
  You mean well Keith and may well believe what you are saying, but you do not know business and you certainly have no idea how business works.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  
  have you considered the fact that maybe you have changed.?
  i am not the only one to think so.
  
  your logo changes by the day, volunteer, elected volunteer, sometimes priory, maxton and elms vale and others.
  today it it says simply priory.
  
  out of interest who elected you as a volunteer in elms vale and maxton?
  
  you refuse to give details of this imaginary development, content just to ingratiate yourself with the younger citizens.
  
  why would councillor sheldrake know more?
  
  he did not vote for your "preference".
• keith, working as an elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  howard/barryw(theres a combination!) your both wrong
  
  
  
  howard
  iv not changed at all,
  still the same guy
  still the same ordinary bloke wanting to do the best for the area
  still working with other volunteers in this aim
  still wanting to resolve differences that may remain(im pleased mandie
  agreed our meeting moved things on)
  still believe howard we could meet up and we can have a blank sheet
  I will answer questions you may want to pose
  This is not something i have to do, but I feel we can again work
  together if thats your wish, as at this moment in time I dont even
  know what it is that has made me this evil animal.
  
  
  
  It is correct I did a lot as a cllr but i'v finished with all that, and the present
  cllrs should now take up the work and in many cases do.
  I will continue to work as a volunteer for the community because like many other priory volunteers we want to work for the community.
  so what ever your decision howard, my work will continue
  but im not willing to have a negative debate about how good/bad I am
  on here as its boring, and im sure no ones interested anyway.
  
  lets get together, blank sheet
  
  
  keith
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  roughly translated, that means you still refuse to back up your wild statements, and feel that you are immune from explaining yourself.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Beth you describe a near nightmare scenario there, its almost like a futuristic science fiction film, a Blade Runner. I hope the police and indeed your councillors can do more for the people up there.
  
  Who are your councillors?
  
  Sadly I think general ASBO type crime seems to be the one arena where the police are struggling to cope. All other crime figures are down throughout the county but they themselves recognise they need to do more with juvenile related difficulties. I think the first step towards some improvement should be through your councillors who should ask for a meeting with the police as a first step forward.
• keith, working hard as an elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  paulb
  cllrs that i know of for st rads are
  
  
  gordon cowan tel 203288
  kevin mills dont know tel number
  
  
  town cllrs
  p verrill
  sue jones
  
  might have missed some
  regards
  keith
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Dave I understand your situation there. Although this new force appears 'all new', I am not sure if its actually a contraction of staff. Apart from the political spin re the newness of it all, it may in actual terms be a cutback. Its impossible to tell at this stage. Usually when two sets of operations merge, it often amounts to just that....a cutback, a reduction in staffing levels.
  
  Roger just to let you know, although you may well be aware of it already, there is now a British immigration/police presence in Calais, preventing illegals ever reaching here, which should re-assure you. I quite clearly saw them in operation myself last summer. The Minister said the other day..how did he put it..
  "there were 12,000 Alerts in Calais, leading to 1,000 arrests"
  whether in fact these arrests are processed under French law I dont know.
• keith, trying to be my helpful self!! wrote:
  just looked up the Town council web site
  and if information is correct the 3rd town cllr for st rads is
  Dianne Smallwood
  
  
  keith
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Thanks for all your opinions on my estate, sadly the cllrs dont seem to care for the residents after all three of them that helpful keith put on here dont live up there also the few that do live around me feel singled out if they stand up to these young yobs.
  
  Keith you mentioned that i should do a diary and descriptions of the offenders.I do belive that they are already known as most of them attended the former St Rads school and were trouble there.
  
  I have contacted the police and all i got back was ITS A MODERN SIGN OF THE TIMES AND ON ESTATES ALL OVER ENGLAND. I have also spoken to the local pcso and he is coming to visit. LOVE BETH XXXXX
• KEITH, working as an elected volunteer in priory for the residents wrote:
  Beth,
  Im sorry to hear you don't have much joy from the cllrs but im pleased the pcso has taken an interesYou do need to keep on and not give up, and stand up to these people who are spoiling your community.
  
  I think it comes back to these youth meetings where the boys present
  wouldn't even listen to the females when they spoke, total lack of respect.
  im aware these same boys(or some of them)were causing mayhem in a local housing estate close by.
  
  So yes, everyone has a voice and should work together, but also
  respect has to be gained, and whilst you can help people to get on the right track, when people such as youth are going down he wrong road they need correcting.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The above pictures were taken this morning on my short walk to the shops. My walk is about 700 yards there, and 700 yards back and this is what I encounter everytime I do it. I didnt have to go out of my way to take these pictures, and in fact the pictures actually make it look better than it actually is in the cold light of reality. Is this some hidden far off area of town, some out of the way embarassment...NO! its right in the heart of the town, right on the tourist walkway. One of the pictures is of an empty shop in high spot Market Sq. Sought after location? No not really, the shop has been empty for more than a year....nobody is beating a path to this particular door!
  
  People talking about Dover as a serious tourist destination are either having a laugh or totally deluded. Its ramshaclke rundown delapidated and poor. Where are all the good times? where is this shangri-la we were promised under the Tory District Council.
  
  I remember the old story..yes the one that the Labour controlled council of the time didnt have any business acumen amongst their total. Okay so maybe we bought into that one, and changed to the Tories, but years later we are still in the same boat, are we not?..and we still cant find the paddle.
  
  Where is all this business acumen!
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Well, thanks for that Paul.
  
  Looks grim doesn't it ? The trouble is that those photos do show how much work is required before we can be a successful tourist destination. The sad thing is that those sites haven't just got in that state, but have been like that for quite some time; the most recent site there being Party Planners.
  
  Don't forget as well that some of those sites are directly under DTIZ, so won't have much/anything done until works starts.
  
  I will send you the email address of someone I think should see them and your comments.
  
  Part of this comes under the "Public Realm Open Spaces" Dover Pride initiative and in my view all the above sites should have been resolved through enforcement - other Towns can do it, we could too with a CAN DO attitude.
  We need to find a way to do positive things, not reasons why we can't.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 648 wrote:
  Well Paul you really know how to loose friends.Roger is correct a lot of your pictures are taken where the DTIZ development will take place.Three Cooks we got the windows fixed i said on the forum before absentee landlords.Party Planners i think there was a reason that the owner had to give up the shop.The picture of the litter DDC can do something about .Phone your local councillor.
  The old Labour exchange numbet 10 King Street we are trying to resolve issuies with this property.
  Its a pity you dont attend council or cabinet meetings see how decisions are made.
  A lot of good work is being done .Another property in Snargate Street is being done up one High Street .Slowly slowly we get there.
  You covered the press release re the School children getting the Freedom pass we do get there in the end.Stop having a go you mix with a lot of councillors and by now you should realise we cannot achieve everthing .Its a good job we can rise above these sort of comments.Who put the litter there all 45 councillors i suppose.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  much as i appreciate the comments from susan and roger, at the end of the day, the people that head the business have to take responsibility.
  
  this was made clear when there was a different administration.
  
  paul has simply taken pics of his normal route to the shops.
  
  the snoops bit winds me up the most.
  
  having said all that, the DTIZ promises new things and i have always backed it to the hilt.
  
  combined with the high speed rail link, better things are on the horizon for our town.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Hurrah to you Paul - well said. And Fine Words never Buttered Parsnips....or something like that!!!! We are told repeatedly that "something is going to be done" but it has not materialised - those pictures clearly demonstrate what faces the people we are trying to encourage to visit us - and not only that, we as residents have to put up with a less that picturesque landscape. I think we need visible actions and not the promises and words that drown us. Nice One PaulB!
• Alan, Dover wrote:
  The Decline of Dover is Solel the fault of Gwen Prosser with all his bull S*** Im sorry but its the only way I can put it,and I would to his face to
  he is not interested in dover at all only what kind of good living this town can give him, His mouth is mightier than the pen he will say one thing and do the other.Roads, Hospitals, Docks, He has had a lot to say on all of these but what has he done Nothing. May Be this new border force can take him back to wales,
• PW, Deal wrote:
  Actually started taking a similar set of photos myself and will do more tomorrow. Yes there are quite a few places like this but think that Burlington House, the Bus Depot, etc are to start going soon....
  
  Also look at the Metropole Hotel (above the 8 Bells), Prince of Wales House, the derelict plot in York Street filling up, the Green Room, all taken or taking shape. At the Castle, they are spending money:
  
  www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast/sets/72057594096672995/
  
  Officers' Mess, the Keep Shop, Peverell's Tower all being worked on.
  
  St James's should hopefully start to take shape soon.
  
  My album of the town should hopefully be some more Then and Now's hopefully......
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  surprised by the attack on our honourable member, the future of the town is decided by the district council.
  
  GP has been involved with the fight to keep the prison away and still
  sides with the strikers of 20 years ago, despite it not being a headine grabbing thing.
• Paul, Dover wrote:
  Hmmn. There is something strangly uplifting at the sight of urban decay. A vestigial trace of what was and what could be strikes me as I muse over the images I pour over strikingly captured by the photographer. A paradoxical interpretation diametrically juxapositioned by the surrounding vista which lends itself to Mans innermost thoughts. On the other hand a bleak reminder of Mans inability to create something beautiful from something so ugly. I suppose the bottom line comes down to money or the lack of it. If, for example, the Olympic commitee in Planet London decided to spend some many millions creating their pipe dream regeneration scheme here in the town then most of the town centre would be demolished and new structures would be created. This is highly unlikely at least in my lifetime so in the meantime this is the reality we are left with sadly.
  Someone left a comment about GP still supporting the striking miners. How does this square with his "green" credentials? Coal is non-u under the current fashion rules and until people realise that natural global warming deniers are conning the world the status quo will remain.
• howardmcsweeney, dover wrote:
  it was about striking ferry workers paul.
• Michelle, Whitfield wrote:
  I dont do politics as you know! however I do do Tourism and these pictures are very disheartening.
  
  With regard to Party Planners I spoke with Andy about a week ago and he assures me the business is re-opening in another position within the town and they are still working behind the scenes.
  
  Michelle x
  
  
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  The pics are mostly from where the DTIZ work will be, but we have been waiting since lord knows when for as much as a hole to be dug for this project, and all the time we have to continue to look at these decrebid buildings.
  
  Our tourists have no idea that there is a project that is supposed to be happening, they are just going to look and think "what a dump"
  
  We keep hearing that work will start. Speaking only for myself. I have been hearing it since at least 4 years, and still nothing has happened.
  
  WHEN EXACTLY WILL WORK BEGIN?? DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY KNOW??
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Hear Hear Mandie - it is bad enough that we have to live with the decay while being patronised about "plans" and "it is going to happen", but if we are seeking to increase tourism -and we seriously need to!- we need to understand that tourists will not care about plans, they will just see the grot......and leave. And not return. A consdierable amount of tourism business is built on return trade, and Dover is so well placed for that. Foir Goodness' Sake!!!
• Jeane Trend-Hill, Essex wrote:
  Oh dear........there is a website called Derelict London which has a cult following, maybe you should start a Derelict Dover?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  lol Sue!! I hope I dont manage to lose any more friends...I have so few left!
  
  Mandie as I understand it only 3 of the pictures are taken inside the DITZ area, the two of the decaying concrete abandoned carpark and the one of the rubbish fly tip. Thats as I understand it anyway.
  
  Excellent comments - making a great read!
• Guest 656 wrote:
  Derilict Dover, Jeane, perish the thought, we want to be known as Dazzling Dover! Those pictures PaulB are a sorry sight, especially as its your route to the shops and back on a saturday morning. Maybe you should do what Maggie Thatcher said in the past, 'Get on yer bike' and go to Folkestone or Canterbury, at least your endorphin levels would be well enhanced lol!
  
  Joking apart, it is good to see that soil investigations and archaeological studies are scheduled (whatever that means) and the demolition of the Russell Street Stagecoach depot likely by the end of May. At this stage it would nice to know if 'scheduled' and 'likely' were more defined as we could then all look forward to a development date as such, and this would be a great step towards improving the morale of the Dover community. Our 'Be Dazzled in Dover' posters would then become a reality for sure.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  'Dazzling Dover' has a certain ring to it, that is certainly something that I could get used to. It is a bit of an eye opener for the tourist and local alike when you are confronted with the images of desolation that are pictured here, and we have been constantly told to look at the larger picture, which we have all been promised over the years as far as regeneration is concerned. I have pointed out many times in the not too distant past that why has the property in Market Square not had a purchase order placed on it as it is an eyesore which doesn't give the right impression for what should be a forward thinking town. The possibilities are endless with the submissions by Bond City and food giant Asda for the new development.
  
  I am prepared to be 'Dazzled' as Dover has so much to offer, if other towns can do it, why can't we?
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Again after these pictures have to say THIS IS WHAT WELCOMES TOURISTS TO OUR TOWN. No wonder they feel let down.
• keith, priory volunteer wrote:
  beth
  have to agree, but we have to hope those promising the earth acheive it cos dovers going down ill
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  a week or so ago, dover district council website stated that work would begin by the end of january.
  it can be so frustrating, we are all looking forward to the development.
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  AHHHHHHH!!!! BUT WHICH JANUARY HOWARD? lololol
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  mandie
  
  the priory station was supposed to be finished by christmas, 2006.
  
  they never mentioned the year in writing though.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I do believe that most of the (physical) changes to the station were (more or less) on time Howard.
  
  The next phase, which has been the subject of a number of consultations and public exhibitions, is all about the public realm and the open spaces around the station and the Folkestone Road.
  
  I do understand that the public's ideas have been taken on board where ever possible, so folks won't say "I don't like that idea" - but I'm sure some will.
  
  I know that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but at least those interested, have been able to give their input.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, working as an elected volunteer in priory wrote:
  well, the priory station and millions spent on it is disgusting, cant be worth the money spent.
  
  its still not an inviting station.
  
  lets hope the next phase improves things
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  roger
  the date i gave on my previous post was correct and copied from the website of DDC in 2005.
  they later amended it to spring 2007.
  
  moving on, does anyone know the reason for the vandalism to trees close by the station?
• keith, working as an elected volunteer for priory residents wrote:
  howard
  my understanding on the trees is the local business's b and b's
  wanted them cut down
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  why would they want them cut down?
  
  besides they are not cut down, just vandalised.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I'm sorry you feel the improvements are disgusting Keith - have you let anyone know - did you attend the consultations and exhibitions and give your input ?
  
  I thought the trees were trimmed to create a feeling of openness and space and ordered by the same people who cleared the ground by the train-tunnel on the other side of the road.
  
  I must agree it does make them look a bit like amputated limbs.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Following advice and information from Roger (Cllr Roger Walkden) I have written to Richard Lawrence, the Programme Manager of Dover Pride, asking him to look at these pictures and comments. He has now in turn asked the relevent people at both DDC and KCC to look also. So both the comments and the pictures are being monitored at the top level, in other words amongst those with the power to do something.
  
  We are simply fed up looking at this squalor everyday and want something done about it. Its been like this for years and years. Its not the norm, we dont want to accept it as the norm.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Well done Paul.
  
  As you say, this is now being looked at, at the highest level.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, working as an elected volunteer in priory wrote:
  howard/
  
  wasn't justifying trees being butchered, when i was on council i did tell the few local business's that it wasnt a good idea to cut them all down, trim maybe.
  
  
  roger/
  was involved in the talks on the rail situation for years and had many meetyings with the railways/kcc/ and even Dover pride. plus many other agencies.
  
  but once your party took control myself and were excluded
  but i still met with many agencies to get as much done as poss.
  they(and you)are aware that i was never happy with these consultations. or the outcomes, and the priory stn shows how it has gone.
  
  im very interested to know about the steps, as the last consultation it appears the steps were to lead direct from priory hill to the stn, but this had been withdrawn and a far smaller project with little chance through lack of finance that it can be achieved.
  but roger if your telling me its going to happen great!!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  At a briefing on underage drinking this morning ( more on that in due course) I met Council Leader, the top man himself, Paul Watkins, and he took both myself and ColetteB on a tour of optimism around DDC headquarters. Paul was anxious to show a huge amount of positive stuff happening in and around Dover and indeed there is, he wanted to point this out as an antidote to the pictures on display above. There are a whole serious of illustrations and pictures at DDC HQ of the various developments in progress and very impressive they are too it must be said. No doubt in the next few years many changes will kick in across the district. The district of course is much wider than Dover itself which is always worth remembering.
  
  With regard to the items we are discussing on here..
  firstly the DTIZ development.
  PaulW said...
  "the archeaologists will be in by the end of Feb"
  then went on to say that
  "the Stagecoach Garage will be coming down between April and May"
  so it looks like things are at last about to move forward.I will be breaking out the champagne the day I see that garage coming down as it will symbolise "a giant leap for mankind"...well, in Dover terms anyway.
  
  With regard to the Priory Station he said that £2.6Million will be spent on the next phase and he is optimistic that it will be a great success.
  
  Yes that's quite a substantial amount of money so fingers crossed that most people will be happy with it at the end of the day.These inner city developments I know dont please everybody, but at this late stage in the game I myself will be personally delighted to see the arrival of that mighty ship ASDA and all that flows in with her.
• keith, working hard as an elected volunteer for priory wrote:
  paulb
  I welcome your comments, I do hope the original plan of the steps from priory hill will still go direct into the rail station.
  
  This was put on ice a little while ago and the amount put towards this was so low it was unlikely to get 2 steps moved!!
  
  We have to be positive about Dover, but watching spiral downhill is heartbreaking.
  
  Wonder how town shops will survive both in the short term and when ASDA may open.
  
  what will happen to london road shops?
  
  interesting times ahead
  
  k
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Hi Paul - how come no one believes us when we (Councillors) say what is happening ?
  I'm glad you and Colette were able to see first hand what is being done and developed.
  
  Howard:
  I walked over the station bridge this afternoon and saw that the trees have been cut right down. It does look better than those amputated limbs.
  
  Keith: it wasn't "my party" that took over the station and you know it; the enhancements were made by partnerships - for quite sometime, the only way to achieve success.
  
  I'm not talking about talks of years ago, they obviously came to nothing, I'm talking about the recent talks/consultations etc. over the last year or two, that have achieved quite a bit.
  
  I understood that all your requests etc, for the Priory steps were/are to be actioned.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  roger
  take your point about the trees.
  the ones i saw were visible from the folkestone road, they do look vandalised.
  went down the steps today and realised what you were referring to.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - I will join you in that glass of champagne when it all kicks off!! Well done that man, for finding the info, for getting things talked about, for geeing things up!! Nice One!!!
• keith, working as an active elected community rep in priory wrote:
  roger
  thankfully those talks years ago got the ball rolling to get where we are today.
  sadly your administration decided to exclude local members from any recent talks, not a problem as i found other ways to get the info
  sad for those that el,ected the cllrs
  
  I hope investigations can take place on the steps going from priory hill direct to station to see if the plans ar still to go this route
  and the steps from priory hill to priory gate rd closed off as this is why it was requested in first place as a 10 year old was attacked on these steps so to keep them open n an unlit dangerously curved alley is asking for trouble.
  
  but lets hope it is moving on and the finance for this part of the project is in place as it wasnt recently
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  For someone who is always saying you are a positive person, you do say some very negative things, always trying to drag things down. It's a wonder people aren't crying their eyes out all the time when they read your postings !
  
  It wouldn't have been DDC that excluded you, there may have been reasons why other partners felt it may not have been appropriate, but I don't know what they were, if indeed there were any exclusions.
  
  You must appreciate I'm sure, that when any major negotiations are in place, some talks behind closed doors must take place.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Aah thanks Bern...lol yes I'll get the champagne on ice !
• Guest 656 wrote:
  A very interesting morning yesterday, following the DDC's expansive briefing on under-age drinking, the personal tour given by Paul Watkins to PaulB and myself was very informative and positive, Many Thanks Paul.
  
  As Paul's pictures point out, it is the 'Heart' of the town that we are talking about, the sight first seen by tourists and shoppers leave a lasting impression. Although the DTIZ, Priory Station and SeaSports development are progressing along nicely now, the town centre needs to be put right to give back that sense of civic pride.
  
  Add me to the champagne queue, pink would be my preference.
  
  
  
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  nice to see people having a friendly freebie, but would our leader kindly advise why he points to seeda on the caption?
  
  
  they have an ad proclaiming that they are working for a world class county
  outside buckland paper mill.
  
  been there gathering cobwebs for over 5 years to my knowledge, locals will know more than that.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  I for obvious reasons cannot talk too much about the Station but i can tell you that i as Spokesman for the Ticket Office I had a meeting with a big boss over the state of the Station,there is water coming into the Ticket Office everyday and in 3 places when it rains,the workmanship was very poor check the doors hanging off the cupboards,the planning was stupid,if you wait for someone in the new waiting room you will never see them as they do not walk passed you,the chairs have been taken out of the old waiting room so you can't sit down,there are even more serious problems but i cannot talk about them here because I rely on my job for the wages.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I appreciate your position there John and thank you for letting us know just how poorly the work there has been carried out.
  
  Presumably the Station Manager and others (including the company that carried out the work) know it is this poor and have requested the necessary repairs ?
  
  It is a disgrace - bad publicity for who ever did the work - was it a local company, so we know not to use them ?
  
  The station looks quite good from the bridge; I've not been up close and personal since it won that safety award.
  
  Call one of the local papers, they'll show them up.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Thanks for your comments Roger,and although I would like to name names this is one of the areas I have a problem as I understand there is a court case pending,regeneration is good and it will be for Dover but we must make sure the work is upto the quality we need not just stick something up and that will do,the people of Dover will not stand for things just stuck up to quell the shouts for regeneration,we also need quality.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sorry to read that john, it is not as if the contractors rushed the job.
  they were there ages, for what was not a very big job.
• keith, working as an elected volunteer in priory wrote:
  john
  that is sad john a the cost of theproject isnt cheap.
  I hope you can rectify these issues.
  
  of course because of your employment and pending cases you cant take this one on.
  good luck
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Problems still keep stacking up in the economy as a direct result of Gordon Browns mis-management.
  
  The Office for National Statistics has revealed that factory gate inflation rose more than expected in January and to its highest rate in more than 16 years.
  
  According to the ONS, output prices rose 1% on the month in January, taking the annual rate up to 5.7% from 5%. Analysts had expected an annual reading of 5.1%.
  
  Core output price inflation also rose much faster than expected, up 0.8% on the month, the fastest since records began in 1986.
  
  The figures are likely to raise expectations that the Bank of England may not be able to cut interest rates as fast as the market would expect as price pressures continue to build even as the economy slows.
  
  This is probably why the Bank of England did not reduce rates last week by as much as the markets expected.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW... not sure if I am following all that there...but as I reflect on the state of play, Im not convinced that our current economic downward spiral has anything at all to do with Gordon Browns tenure at No 11. It's true we have growing inflation, higher prices in the shops particularly on food, higher commodity prices, and a credit squeeze due to a banking crisies, but all these things are directly to do with overseas forces.
  
  Higher oil prices, scandalous gas prices, chaos in the american housing market, crisies in the banking sector, but all these things are a result of global fluctuations and problems. Even throughout the Euro-Zone inflation is increasing, so its not just our problem here but a problem everywhere. Therefore surely Gordon Brown isnt responsible for all that. These same difficulties would be upon us no matter who was in power.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB.
  
  Over the last 10 years Gordon Brown has only kept the economy afloat during what was a very benign period by excessive borrowing not only by the Government but by individuals.
  
  He has removed or devalued the incentives to save and invest while going on a Government spending spree that is unprecedented.
  
  The world economy always goes in cycles and he has left this country unprepared for the downturn. What we are experiencing now is not unexpected, it happens as sure as night follows day.
  
  During the period of economic growth, over the last 10 years he continued to tax borrow and spend at a time when borrowing should have been paid back. He squandered the strong financial position he inherited from Ken Clarke rather than build upon it.
  
  The UK is now overextended, interest rates should be reduced and taxes reduced to stimulate the economy. He cannot reduce taxes because of his spending commitments and still has to keep borrowing to pay for these while also at the same time suffering from reduced revenues as a result of the downturn.
  
  The result is that interest rates must fall BUT the cost will be high inflation that will hit us in 18 months-2 years time as a result of increased money supply.
  
  In short the fool has backed our economy against the wall and we will all be suffering as a result. Jobs will be lost, company bankrupsies are increasing, house reposessions increasing.
  
  I have warned before on the Forum that he is not all that some crack him up to be and he was leading us in exactly the wrong economic direction. I could see it, so could his advisers - but then he does not take advice as his disasterous handling of our gold reserves and the pensions issue demonstrates.
  
  The buck stops with him.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Economies and communities are organic entities - there are some predictable features and events, but a curve ball sometimes changes the direction. Let's see.............
• Barry WilliamsType your name here..., Dover wrote:
  Bit more information that I found on the web.
  
  Britain's public finances are deteriorating faster than anyone, Tories, Labour or LibDems, expected. The National Debt has balooned to £650 billion from £315 billion in 2001/2002. And the revelation that funding this debt is now practically equal to the annual defence budget should be pause for thought.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ive been banging this particular drum for years and years but now in a report published in The Guardian newspaper yesterday it emphasises (with much more weight than yours truly can muster) that the level of pollution with shipping is unacceptably high, much higher than previously thought. In fact the CO2 emiisions are three times higher than originally thought, following this latest study, and twice more than the totals emitted by all aircraft.
  
  Many people in the media and indeed amongst the green conscious, are asking how this level of pollution has managed to slip through un-noticed for years, for example when the much lower polluting aircraft are pillorised.
  
  You can see the picture above ( on show for the moment) just how much stuff is chucked out all day and everyday and that's just one ferry and that's just here in Dover. But strapulate that globally and.... wow !
  
  Of course local residents here in lil ol Dover can tell you this with a cursory glance at the horizon on a warm day. Not only can you whiff it deep in the air but it is all too visible.
  
  I wonder if the local newspapers can check out that report and maybe add to the debate.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i seem to remember about 2 or 3 years back the ferry companies stating that they would be fitting special filters to alleviate the problem.
  we need someone like ed connell to clarify this, i think.
  
  the muck that the catamaran in the western dock lets out, seems out of proportion to its size.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Howard yes there was much talk of special filters and yes I hope Ed is out there somewhere looking in, as he could add significantly.
  
  Re the Speedferries..they certainly did do there share of polluting and I once got a mouthful from owner of said company for daring to bring the subject up...however I notice in more recent times that their levels seem better. This is not a scientific observation but based merely on seeing them go to and fro daily...so maybe they have made some improvements. They used to kick out thick black soot-like stuff but that does not now seem to be happening.
  
  However generally things are not good as shipping is now recognised as a significant polluter.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  hello
  I recall P&O did introduce some newer fuel(im a novice on this)but i recall a publicity release where they said they had introduced some ships with lower emmissions
  and all there new ships as they were built would be fited to take this lower emmission fuel?
  
  So that might have made a difference.
  
  But we are in a commercial world, and on the one hand millions of people use these ships all the year round, on the other hand we see if you ever visit the docks what is coming from all those ships every hour.
  its a balancing act, one that wont be solved overnight, once you star hitting at companies profits they tend to stop listening or play lip service to concerns.
  
  I hope it does get solved but as you can see from my posting I wonder if it will
  fair play to all those companies who achieve it
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Just a few short weeks ago we were wondering here on doverforum what had become of Charlie Elphicke. He had somehow slipped under the radar and become invisible. But lo and behold, no sooner was the ink dry on those comments when up popped Charlie with considerable aplomb, to feature five times in the Dover Express in one week. Then follow that particular onslaught with yet more coverage this week. Stone me! and there isnt even an election imminent.
  
  This week (issue Feb 14) among other things, we get the full page feature on Charlie from no less a figure than DE supremo and low key Irishman Simon Finlay.
  
  " Conservativea re beginning to scent Labour Blood in Dover "
  
  screams Editor Finlay, but why so and how so remains a mystery. It doesn't appear, to the average voter here in Dover, that the Labour blood is about to be spilt by anyone. Simon does not make a real case in his article as to what the reason might be for this expected total shift in local opinion, but seems to base his suggestion of shift on the fact that poor ould Gordie Brown isnt doing too well at No 10.
  
  But no, I dont think the hapless Gordon Brown's antics will impact hugely on the people here in Dover, unless he commits some kind of massive scale hari-kari. While its true Gordon rattles dismally from one crises to another, his all too human frailties are not going to impact too significantly on the people of Dover, not while we have the robust Gwyn Prosser fighting our corner and looking immensely steady. The people of Dover have recognised Gwyn's efforts by continueing to vote for him. Of course everything and everybody has a shelf life but I have a feeling Gwyn's hasn't expired just yet. The Tories will need to conjure up something mighty and weighty, conjure up a real season why people should bother shifting away from the current steady ship.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB.
  
  You can be forgiven by not being intimately acquainted with Dover's political history.
  
  Dover has very much been a swing seat. Where the Nation swings, Dover will go as well.
  
  Regardless of what Simon says GP has not exactly distinguished himself, far from it. The election results of 1997 and since are not down to him, they just followed the national trend. That trend is clearly reversing.
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  If Gwynn re-election follows national trends then Barry,we can look forward to another 4 years of Gwynn and Labour then!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I have said on here and other forums barryw spouts off in the hope that people will believe, it didn't work for the last 3 elections and it wont work now.
  I would even feel a little (very little)sorry for Barryw who is obviously committed to the cause.
  
  Lets look over what goes on;
  
  We had the days of Peter Rees theres no doubt he was a peoples person and whilst i would never hare his politics, or hat he got up to at times, he did at the time make the Dover/Deal seat safe for the tories.
  
  Our Labour man followed that and got respect(David Ennals)and made it a more marginal seat.
  
  Over the years the TORIES have held the seat with people like
  David SHAW the most hated MP this area has ever had, and spent more time IN Scotland, and not nough time fighting for constituents.
  everyone breathed easier when Gwyn came to 833 votes of beating, andall energies went into building on that terrific result and 4 years later saw Gwyn get rid of the most hated MP for Dover/Deal
  
  OF ourse our loyal mr shaw as soon as he lost his seat he aso lost interest in Dover and went back to London
  and the conservatives went for local man our very own mr Watkins.
  Im aware as iv canvassed all over Dover/Deal and the rurals that it as a wrong choice(for the conservatives) and whilst pauil did well to reduce the majority by half, it still was a mountain of votes.
  after a few defeats paul realised t was time to move on, where we see our Charlie.
  Iv met charlie a few times and hes a plenty enough chap, not very good at holding conversations though(ran to local paper with a comment i made to him, not to worry)and keeping it to himself.
  
  Its my humble opinion that charlie has a mountain to climb for a number of reasons;
  
  1; No one(outside tory circles)knows him that well
  2; Gwyn has a good following
  3; people outside of tory party dont trust the tories and cameron is no
  more trusted than maggie was, so its some mountain.
  
  
  So im aware the Labour party as always will take nothing for granted and will fight for evry singl vote, and Gwyn will be returned again, ad Barryw will be moaning about something that stopped charlie winning, as though people dont have minds of there own.
  As iv said here and on other forums i cant afford the tories back in govt.
  I will b ong labour
  but more importantly so will/are many other usually non voting people
  who dont wat the tories in either
  people have long memories.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Take the rose coloured specs off JHG - times move on...
  
  Keith. You too are are clearly out of touch with what is happening now, times change.
  
  To emphasise how factually inaccurate you are I quote you:
  
  ****""We had the days of Peter Rees theres no doubt he was a peoples person and whilst i would never hare his politics, or hat he got up to at times, he did at the time make the Dover/Deal seat safe for the tories.
  
  Our Labour man followed that and got respect(David Ennals)and made it a more marginal seat.""****
  
  Yes thats right - you did say David Ennals followed Peter Rees. You simply could not be more factually wrong.
  
  Peter Rees won Dover on 1970, beating David Ennals by approx. 2,000 votes and held the seat, handing over to David Shaw. So you see Peter followed David Ennals, not the other way round....
  
  Then your usual slating of David Shaw, he had the wrong accent for some people, like you. But he was a good hard working MP for Dover and the Hansard record prooves that. As for forgetting us - no as it happens, I and many others who knew him in Dover are still on his Christmas Card list and his charity still benefits Dover schools. A payment was made to a school fairly recently.
  
  Oh yes, his charity. He donated his television appearance fees to a charity he set up to benefit Dover schools. In an age of sleeze and MP's fiddling with expenses that says a lot about the much maligned David Shaw.
  
  Accent apart (a bit posh for the Keith's of this world), he was head and shoulders, as an effective MP, above the present incumbant.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  I wasn't actually speaking of MP's in order, just some of those who had ben MP.
  
  You might like to know Barryw that I have a LOT of friends with POSH acceNt as you call them.
  BUT i WAS talking about ability, and D Shaw didn't have it.
  You obviously dont read half these papers that say how hated he was as an MP
  (you usually are good at quoting nationals!!)
  
  I was trying to make the point that Dover has had some good MP's
  I thought when Peter Ree';s was the MP that this seat would get stronger and stronger tory, but it didn't happen.
  
  Yes, In todays politics Gwyn has a big following from non voters as well as tradituonal Labour people, and the tories are still not trusted.
  
  but don't just believe my word, get out there on the doorstep, like I have
  listen to people outside of your small inner tory circle.
  
  Charlie will give Gwyn a run for his money, but cameron wil drag charlie down, as people know the tories promise the world but are realy the same old tories.
  
  Barryw I even feel the smallest bit sorry for you(very small)as i know how it feels on a national level whats its like to face the world after being defeated.
  
  So all i say is;
  Gwyn will get in again because of the mistrust of national tories
  
  
  k
  
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Keith I think you may have underestimated some of our young people who want a change in Goverment,but these people don't remember what the Tories did for us,sky-high inflation,shopping going up not only weekly but daily,sold off our Council Houses to stop youngsters and families getting a roof over thier heads and Barry argues about inflation costs going up,yes there is a worldwide depression but because of many Labour ideas we will not be as badly hit as some,then there is Maggie and the working man,she stuck it up them didn't she,of course we can always add repossessed homes.In 10 years 454,000 homes were repossed under the Tories while in the 10 years of Labour 197,000 houses were repossed.
  This is not as any goverment would want but as least it shows Labour cares more about families than how much can I put in my pocket culture.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Coming from Sandwich I knew Peter Rees well,in fact I canvassed him once on behalf of the Labour Party,and he was very pleasant to me.The problem was at the count he recognised me and came over to talk,i was carring a black folder in my arms and my arms were crossed,as we chatted I rested my arms and my Labour rosette came into view,he disappeared like a let down balloon.He recognised me but obviously couldn't remember where from.
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  John
  I underestimate no one,
  I agree with your views, but iv canvassed the young over a very long period and most are sensible.
  
  they are not crying out for a tory govt.
  
  
  if anything they wont vote(which is sad)
  
  but thats because politics these days is so boring
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I am very amused by Keith and JHG.
  
  I will simply comment for now by pointing out the 29% inflation we had under the 1974/1979 Labour Government. No Conservative Government has ever created a mess such as the total economic screw up Labour did in those days. Give them time and the present Labour Government will get there and achieve even greater levels of economic disaster, they are on the road to it, but I dont think people will be daft enough to re-elect the Brown Government again.
  
  Britain was like a junkie in the 1970's, the sick man of Europe under the Wilson and Callaghan Governments. An addict to State subsidy and suservient to overpowerful Trade Union bosses.
  
  Like all addicts the withdrawal syptoms were diffficult under Mrs T but it was essential to restore Britain to economic health and thanks to her we are all better off....
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Further to JHG's post.
  
  I copy an extract taken from what he said:
  ***"""yes there is a worldwide depression but because of many Labour ideas we will not be as badly hit as some""***
  
  Working in finance I can state categorically that what you have said here is not true. There is no 'world depression' there is a cyclic economic downturn and the threat of a recession exists and that is different from a depression. I actually believe that we will escape a full-blown recession in the UK anyway.
  
  But in what way do you justify the second half of what you say.
  
  International and City experts say the opposite. An impartial examination of the economy does not show that.
  
  So, John, in what way can you justify the statement you made? In what way do you think the Labour Government has prepared the UK economy and placed it is good shape for the downturn?
  
  I see the total opposite. Lets discuss....you have your chance to explain.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Take those dark glasses off Barry,times move on,take schools and you know that I am an expert on those,Schools have never been so well off and now we have a rebuilding programme over the next 10 years,I bet David Shaw donated his money to a good 'Secondary School' (not)
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Barry if I said to you that it's yellow you would argue its Green because I said it,you can make Stats say anything you like,it even depends on what newspaper you believe or what you read from the internet,do you remember when we crossed swords,let me refresh your memory,football pitches,when your Council put them up 5% then stuck them up another40% which you made 45% but of course 5% plus 40% works out at nearer 47% and when i challenged you on that you didn't seem to know that.
  
  I don't believe in everything my Goverment says unlike you with your group,I am in politics to fight for equality and justice I am lucky I had a goodish education (SECONDARY) in reasonable health have a good job(it was better when it was nationslised) so I fight for equality for others not for me,
• keith, Dover wrote:
  John
  go get him boy
  
  
  When the day after the election comes and barryw is on here saying it was a labour leaflet
  or people didnt understand
  or well we ran them close
  or
  many other excuses
  we can at least sit back and say
  Thankyou people for another 5 years of this wonderful government
  and thankyou barryw for convincing people not to vote tory
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  JHG - you still have not said anything at all to justify your statement.
  
  I can reel off a whole load of facts to illustrate why the UK has been ill prepared to weather an economic downturn by your Government. I am not talking about statistics but simply basic economics. Make no mistake though, I could come up with loads of statistics as well....
  
  Sadly all that you and Keith have come up with so far is a load of twaddle....So try giving a constructive and intelligent answer rather than the rather personal and utterly mind numbing tosh you have.
  
  Maybe we can get an intelligent discussion of the issues or is that too much to hope for.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good to see that we are all broadly in agreement here.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Barry,
  
  I don't expect any sensible debate to come from these two jokers. I wonder if they will be this cocky when their little world comes crashing down around their ears. As you say - a load of twaddle - out and out childish twaddle. Thank you for being the voice of reason and common sense. I don't do politics but I do try to read as much as I can from all parties. At the moment I definitely know where I'll be putting my cross! Keep up the good work Barry.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Well im still in the real world
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yes, maybe Keith but not the same world as the rest of us clearly. Given that you have never been able to substantiate any of the claims that you make on this Forum. I wont embarrass you further by listing them.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I am surprised that John and Keith are so cocky about winning an election which is at least a couple of years away.
  
  I'm not going to slag people off or go into personalities, as we should all be working together to make our part of the World better for those we represent.
  
  What I would like to say is that (locally) we (the Conservatives) will be judged on what we have done since we came to office in 2003 and what the National Government is doing - badly and doing badly it most certainly is.
  
  On every level and every department, we have problems - immigration, domestic terrorism (I remember years ago, back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I was saying about all these illegal immigrants coming over from the Middle East and others places, how would we know who is a terrorist and who is just escaping from terror and was called a racist for just asking the question - that has come home to roost now).
  
  The Health Service - more poeple have hospital acquired infections now than ever before - certainly many more than before 1997; in fact you'd never heard of MRSA and the other infections before then. If some hospitals are improving, it's despite, not because of, Govenment intervention - leave it to the specialists, not politicians.
  
  Crime - never have we had so many youth killings - by other youths; never have we had so many guns crimes, crimes against the person and drug-fuelled crimes, which result in the most savage attacks on people - and what are the Government doing about it ? sod all !
  
  This Government have allowed, even encouraged our Society to become broken, because we can't say no to children, who then grow up doing exactly as they want to and stab anyone (or beat them to death) who tells them not to do whatever it is they are doing.
  
  Prisons are overloaded, but overloaded with people who shouldn't be there - foreign nationals should serve their sentence in their own country, which would save us millions and free the prisons up for necessary prisoners; non-violent crimes, like tax evasion or similar, should not be in prison - if they have been found guilty, then sell off their property and take what is due.
  
  There are so many instances of complete incompetance of this Labour Government that I find it difficult to understand how they can defend it - what they have done in ten years is an absolute disgrace - creating a society with no aspirations other than to live on benefits and screw all those who are working through ever-increasing stealth taxes.
  
  John, you may well feel that you are well off - and I'm pleased that you feel you are, but millions of other people are not and now never will be, not even comfortable, let alone well off.
  
  This is long enough for one posting, but I am, as I said at the beginning, surprised at how supportive and cocky you are about Labour - I cannot think of one thing they have done that is good for the general population, or for that matter, Dover.
  
  People need to have a retuern of the "feel-good" factor, they'll never have that under Labour, unless their aspirations only run to a packet of cigarettes and a couple of cans of lager.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Barry, I certainly won't take you on with financial matters,it is not a cop out but as you do this as a living it would be foolhardy,just as it would be for you to challenge me about train tickets.You say I haven't answered your questions you are right,nor have you answered mine,so thats one all,Roger you know me I am not cocky and I know this world can be severe at times,but I knew you would agree with Barry as Keith and I would agree it is because our ideals and values are similar.
  There is nothing wrong with that,and we are all entitled to our views,we live in a Democracy and that is what Politics is about,it is challenging the opposition at every oppotunity,yes we can and do work together,and we have I remember when I was one of the first to support your ideas on bringing the Coaches to Dover,and Barry has just joined the Dover Federation for the Arts as a Governor something I have been on for a number of years fror the benefit of the youngsters,as i do for those in my ward,and I have the greatest of respect for anyone(of any colour) who stands as a Councillor,because it is not a easy'job' probably harder in opposition.
  But I do listen to people not just sit there downloading information from head office.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  John - fair comment about not taking me on regarding financial matters.
  
  My point, however, is that when you make a statement you should be able to substantiate it. You said something on which I asssumed you had a basis for the comment and all you should do was explain the basis in order to provide it with substance.
  
  I can then comment on the point and we are then engaging in meaningful discussion rather than point scoring. This type of exchange need not have to be confrontational as such.
• AlisonW, Dover wrote:
  JFG,
  
  Admittedly, I did find most of your last post quite difficult to understand but the bit I really didn't understand, or even it's relevence, was the bit about Barry just becoming a Governor at Astor. Is there a relevance? What was your point? I would be interested to know.
  
  Roger,
  
  Well done on a brilliant post. They are all the elements of life that I worry about most and it frightens the life out of me how much further it will go.
  
  I'm sorry, but who else can we blame but the present Government who has alot to answer for when it comes to not sorting these things. It's not only the economy and how well-off we are financially...what about ours and our family's general wellbeing, safety and future? That's what I care about most and want to see changing.
  
  I WILL NOT get into a personal slanging match about this with anyone , I really don't see how it can help. This is just my opinion and I cannot believe that it is not the opinion of many other people, especially parents of young children.
  
• AlisonW, Dover wrote:
  Sorry JFG meant JHG!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i thought that john's post was quite clear.
  it seemed to me that he was saying that barry and him both did voluntary work involving young people in our town.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Alison,
  
  Fantastic post and I'm with you 100%. As I get older I do fear what will happen to me when I can no longer defend myself. Also I worry about my grandchildren and what they'll have to contend with as they grow up. As you say, something has to be done and now, or there will be nothing for our children and grandchildren. I want there to be a world where my family feels safe - is that too much to ask?
• Guest 660 wrote:
  It was quite simple Alison,we all do work for the benefit of others,eg Governors,Hell fire corner,Sea Cadet,Lions,etc to benefit the Town and its and its people,there is nothing political involved there,and we all at times work together to that end.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I do not agree with much of what Roger/Barry have posted
  and it realy is about 2 conflicting views.
  
  Alison, I have respect for you and realise your entering into the political minefield,
  
  Its clear that the forum has in the main closed ranks and as i value my friendship with the likes of Jacqui I will refrain fro posting on the political page.
  
  
  keith
  
  
  Roger;
  I hope over the years we have worked closely together on may different projects both local and national, and politics hasn't got in the way.
  Where we can agree I have worked with you, and of course that should continue.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keith I wouldnt want you to refrain from posting here on the Political Page as there will be a great many stories and different features coming up on here in due course, so you could be ruling yourself out of a lot of variety. Much better to stay onboard. I dont think any friendships are at stake at all at all, and the aim and idea is to have balanced view. I still remember your quote....
  
  "But BarryW I still luvs yer!!"
  
  which is a feature on our Hot Letters Page.
  I think thats the spirit we all adopt. Hopefully anyway.
  
  Although you are not an elected representative any more, people still recognise you as a significant voice of your own community. Hang on in there me oul china!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Re Rogers Posting of 19.2
  I would just like to comment on 2 paras of Rogers posting
  
  1.Immigration
  
  You mention terrorists arriving from the Middle East and the difficulty in distinguishing between genuine Asylum applicants in fear of persucution and those just hell bent on commiting acts of terror.Not all terrorists are from overseas, a lot are now originating from 2nd generation immigrants born in this country.Plus there is evidence that there are also a large number of non ethnics that have become Islamic fundamentalists which will be harder to identify in the future and who pose a serious problem to the intelligence services.
  
  The main point that I wish to make is that the large increase in asylum seekers was due to Mrs Thatcher signing the Schengen Agreement in Dublin which came into effect in 1997 which allowed people to claim asylum in any safe country ie a co-signatory of the Geneva Convention,rather than the first safe country they arrived in.So someone travelling overland from Iran Iraq India Bangldesh Pakistan etc would have to claim asylum in the first safe country they set foot in say Germany or Italy depending upon which root they took.But thanks to dear old Maggie they are now allowed to trundle half way around the world pass through Europe and pick any country of their choosing.Which just so happens to be the UK as they tend to speak the language and view this country as a soft touch.I worked 13 years at Dover and never had an asylum application.They were refused and put back on the ferry with instructions to claim asylum in their last safe country. ie France or Belgium.but you couldn't do that after '97.
  So Roger its far too easy and incorrect to blame the current govt for our immigration crisis.
  
  2.Prison overcrowding.
  
  Another issue of great concern.There are approx 15000 foreign prisoners and 10000 on people remand awaiting trial.Surely there must be scope within that 25000 to either deport a good proportion and allow bail to non violent criminals.By all means remand alleged sex offenders ,crimes involving violence or threats of violence but grant bail to those who are unlikelly to reoffend whilst on bail.The problem is that when a Judge or Magistrate allows bail and the person reoffends the Tories are the first to jump up at the despatch box and blame the govt.So you can understand the authorities reluctance to grant bail.
  
  As for selling of assets to pay monies owing.That could prove difficult especially if the offender has young children and a wife innocent of any offence.Why should they suffer.A more realistic sentence would be to get them a job in the community where a percentage of their income is deducted at source.
  
  We can all put out sound bites about the "feel good factor" but to be honest until we as a society decide to take responsibilty for raising our children correctly,afford every child a sound education,good affordable housing,the prospect of a job when leaving school the problem will continue.Its always seemed strange to me but in that in the old days you needed a licence to own a dog to ensure its safety etc but you can pop out kids without any such permission.The benefits system needs overhauling ie its not there for life but only for a given time say 6 months in order to get you into or back into work.Free nurseries for children whose mothers work.
  
  Maybe it's time the parties worked together in finding a solution to our broken society rather than bickering and scoring points off each other like little kids in the playground.They should lead by example.
  
  Hey I have rumbled on far too long apologies PaulB.
  
  Love
  Marek
• AlisonW, Dover wrote:
  
  JHG, Ahhh got ya, I understand! Thanks for clarifying, it's not always easy to get the meaning of comments that are written rather than said.
  
  I agree, at the end of the day we should all be working together for the good of Dover. That's why I don't see a point in wasting my time arguing, sorry debating politics, because it doesn't seem to get you anywhere...apart from gaining enemies, that is.
  
  Some of you may be aware that I stood for County a few years back. For the record I am really glad I didn't get in...I would not have wanted to put up with all the back-stabbing that goes with politics. I spend my life trying as much as possible to keep harmony in mine and my family's life and that would have gone against the grain in my opinion. I pity anyone involved in politics. I would rather do my bit behind the scenes as much as I can.
  
  I even TRY to ban politics around the table at home now...as I am sure you can imagine it has ruined many an enjoyable lunch that I have spent hours, sometimes days, preparing. For me those lunches are about enjoying the good company of friends and family, in a relaxed atmosphere.
  It now upsets me immensely when it is taken over by shouting and very heated debate about politics.
  
  So I am afraid, since being with Barry, political discussion has gone way down on my agenda in life. Yes I know it affects us all but I do not wish to continuously listen to heated debate about it, which, in the end doesn't help any of us or change any of the problems.
  
  Barry might be a pain in the a**e when it comes to 'spouting on about politics' all the time but I also respect him immensely. He has done huge amounts for the benefit of Dover, most of which people do not realise because he does it in the background. And when he supports something he supports it wholeheartedly and is very loyal. One example is being governor to two schools in Dover, one for 25 years, the other for 20 years, at the same time.
  
  Sorry if this sounds like the 'Barry appreciation society'. I am not, for one minute, trying to stick up for him...he does that very well himself (has had to as you can imagine)...but my point is, everybody has their good and not so good sides and their annoying or their likeable traits. At the end of the day they are all human beings and deserve respect and understanding.
  
  So...PLEASE enjoy a good debate WITHOUT the personal attacks and listen and appreciate one another's points of view. Be nice...all of you! Because, after all, where does it get you? It certainly isn't for the good of Dover is it?
  
  Sorry, that to some of you may be drivvle...don't worry I probably won't be on again for a while...can't stand reading the personal attacks!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Terrific posts there from DoverForum legends AlisonW and Marek, in fact great postings all round by one and all. It's interesting to note that the actual viewing figures have gone up since the time of our straight forward forum days which was/is totally unexpected and certainly took me by surprise. There were times when I felt we might be going south not going up!!lol
  
  The explanation for this might be that whereas on a traditional forum, members tend just post to each other, this current way the posts are going outwards more and are read more widely rather than by just other forumites. We are writing to the town rather than each other...thats the notion anyway.
  
  The reason I mention this at all is just to highlight the fact that your message is getting out more than ever before.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  All of a sudden the postings have changed and i agree the postings from Alison Marek are excellent,but we should include Roger and Barry because they were said with passion,of course I don't agree with everything that is said,but I can live with that,me and my mate Keith don't always see eye to eye which leads me onto Keith not posting anymore,
  COME BACK KEITH WE STILL LOVE YOU,well some of the time anyway,that what makes politics so boring to some but so intresting to others,is that there is always lots of different ways at looking at problems and usually none of them are right,but in politics of any colour you meet people who are passionate about thier Road,Ward,Town District or even Country,if they weren't passionate about it,they shouldn't be in Politics,of course those who aren't in to politics can still feel passionate about it too.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  pity that marek doesn't post more often, his are usually based on facts rather than soundbites or cliches.
  
  alison
  it can be difficult to decide where politics and everyday life do not overlap..
  
  mind you, i agree with your point about banning politics at the dinner table.
  not the place for it.
  does barry still stuff his dinner down at the rate of knots?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  small correction. im still an elected community person
  
  John
  Yes your corrrect you have a different political head on to me that shows what a broad church the labour has always been.
  So, whilst I reflect, maybe I should post whn the need arises.
  John,
  If only you would move more to the left! and our party come to that!!
  We have strongly disagreed with each other on a number of subjects, and these issues even today we hold different views on, but we have recognised its more important to work together which i believe we hav doe over the years.
  Some of your views I know John you believe your right,(one local one you know to whiich i refer)but having seen local people suffer because of it
  I could never share your viewpoint.
  
  Alison
  Thank you for sharing your view, I have posted, but found the majority of posters are not from my political viewpoint(which is anyones right) but
  if i post im attacking people but others post and its ok to attack me
  iv tried on here to be open and honest and been clear in saying
  Barryw is a political animal and i respect his committment to his party
  As im committed to my party(as is john)
  we will rarely agree but i have to say there re issues that barry and I would probably agree upon.
  The Benefits system we probably could reach an agreement on
  to name one.
  
  
  Marek
  great posting mate
  
  
  
  So i will post when required but purely in reply no personal comment
  but we can i hope disagree otherwise it will be boring
  
  
  keith
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  We all have to agree to disagree on certain matters and that's not a problem of course, but many things are not as simple as "that's your view" many things are an actual fact and to ignore those facts flies in the face of reason.
  
  My posting wasn't just my opinion of how we are now and why, it is a matter of facts.
  
  
  Thanks for your posting Marek - good to see you on here again.
  
  I've spent quite a long time reading up on this Schengen agreement and Maggie Thatcher did NOT sign up to it in Dublin in 1990 when the other European states did, she wanted (and quite rightly) to keep border controls. Ireland did NOT sign up to it either.
  
  The Schengen Agreement was to abolish Border Control between member states of the European Union.
  The UK signed up on May 20th. 1999 and it was implemented on June 2nd. 2000.
  
  There is a lot of information about it on the Internet and it is heavy going.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Thank you Roger for that.
  
  I had a recollection of what you say but did not have the time to check up on the facts as you did.
  
  The immigration situation is therefore entirely down to the present Labour Government as I have said previously.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  a bit of selective memory from you there, it was the conservative party in government that kick started the thing on a large scale just to keep wages down.
  since then all governments have condoned or encouraged it for the same reason.
  then, when it suits, they make great statements to the opposite.
  my favourite was mrs thatcher and her "swamping" comment.
  made great headlines for her, but nothing was actually done.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Not selective howard. The present situation with asylum seekers is the creation of the present Government.
• howard mcsweeneyyour name here...ard, dover wrote:
  barry
  asylum seekers are a tiny minority, the majority of people that are coming in are from the "new europe".
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  This was regarding a point about asylum seekers and the Schengen agreement. The asylum situation was the contentious one, Sandgatte and all that.
  
  The Eastern Europe influx is merely the latest and is due to their accession to the EU and the Blair Government's refusal to take transition arrangements as did rest of EU. NONE of that can be blamed in any way on the Conservatives.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sorry did not make one point clear:
  
  The influx of Poles and other Eastern Europeans is nothing at all to do with asylum seeking.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  I personally feel that the influx of the majority of hard working East Europeans has been nothing but a boost for this country.There are new buildings spouting up everywhere showing how dynamic and vibrant our economy is at present regardless of what the city experts my say.If there wasnt so much money around how come there is so much new construction work being carried out?.I have had 2 trips to London this week to obtain visas etc and the whole city is awash with renovations repairs and new buildings.If we had phased in these workers we may have missed out in obtaining the creme de la creme of their workforce and a couple of years down the line had been left with the less able work shy remnants only here to claim benefits.So I disagree with Barry for once we got in at the beginning and benefited from their presence.
  
  (ps My opinion has nowt to do with my old dad being a Pole...who fled Nazi torn Europe in 1941...lol)
  
  Everywhere one asks most employees have nothing but praise for our new European workforce.What amazes me is they come over here without a pot to hiss in and within weeks have found work and accommodation but we still have 1 million Brits who can't or won't work.Its a difference in attitude the europeans want to work.And we now have 800,000 poles paying income tax and NI.
  
  My friend an English teacher in Poland came here looking for work. He found a job for himself and his girlfriend at a factory in Ashford.they work early morning or night shifts as the "Brits dont like the hours" earn approx £2500 net take home have rented a lovely house and are expecting their first child.Who can argue against that?
  
  It will be interesting to see how many East Europeans will be employed by the Tory led DDC on the new much heralded St James project!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes it is vital to remember in these debates on immigration that Britain needs this influx of workers. Almost every service at every level has immigration workers manning the essentials, and they take , as Marek says, jobs that Britons wont do anymore.
  
  There is also much misunderstanding of immigration levels in the high street. People out and about in said high street, when asked this week, thought that foreigner levels were about 20% when in actual fact they are only 4%, so the debate is all frenzy and no substance. We are hardly overrun. This info/debate was on the BBC Today programme.
  
  It is also worth remembering, same programme similar info, that something like 2.9 Million Britons are now living abroad.Many of these, 1.2 Million, are at professional level, doctors lawyers etc. It is the highest figure ever in our history. So the Immigration is going both ways.
  
  These figures are approximate.
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Barry is absolutely correct in that Eastern European migration from EU member state countries is an entirely seperate issue from non-European asylum seekers. Permanent settlement on a large scale from Poles and Czechs (e.g.) in Britain since joining the EU has yet to be proven. It is my understanding that these persons are hard-working and tend to return home after earning money doing support industry jobs, construction and agricultural work. (On the converse we do, of course, have prostitution and human traffiking from many of the same sources). Those persons arriving in the backs of lorries from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria and so on are an entirely seperate issue.
  
  A lot of people tend to think that Britain is particularly targeted by asylum seekers. Yes, many do seek to come here deliberately but, quite frankly, the whole of Europe is a target. Belgium, Italy, France, Germany, Denmark and so on, are all swamped with persons trying to economically better themselves - the main difference being that if one fails in one country then one only has to hop on a train and try somewhere else. Britain is the last stop on the line. Someone who makes it across the Channel concealed in a lorry who provides a false name and nationality is extremely difficult to document and remove even following asylum and appeals refusals. It is worth mentioning that if a fingerprint match can be obtained with another country then that person can indeed be returned there. This is the only method of removal for some nationalities.
  
  Quite simply Europe is facing the greatest displacement of persons from the East since the 5th century, and possibly more so. The difference then was that migration was previously due to displacement from the expanding Mongol Empire pushing out ethnic groups like a row of dominos into Europe. These days the drive is primarily economic for most cases - asylum is just used in lieu of a passport.
  
  The pressure caused by immigration into the UK on the over-stretched health services and educational system is colossal and will increase exponentially in the future.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Some interesting comments, but we are where we are, and many of the polish who came over whn they were legally able, are still here most working, so is that a bad thing?
  
  
  Conservative or labour have not faultless on the asylum issue, so lets not blame one party, be a bit more adult and honest.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  There is no doubt in my mind that the Eastern Europeans are generally hard working decent people who are a benefit to the UK. They are welcome.
  
  They only arose as an issue on here because certain people are trying to blow smoke over the Labour Governments failure over asylum seekers. Some asylum seekers are no doubt genuine and I have no problem with them, they need help, but many are certainly bogus, crossing the continent to get here and live off our benefit system. Because of our benefits, we are being taken advantage of and we certainly, as a result, have had much more than our fair share of these.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  it would be nice to have some proof of this
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So, Keith. What reason do you give for them crossing many borders into safe countries to get here? These other countries are not idiotic enough to have a benefits system as generous as ours.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Its the truth im after
  i resume you have evidence that a large number are abusing/or using he benefits system?
  
  
  It could also be argued that we have many English born people doing the same.
  
  
  The benefits system does need updating, but NO government has been brave enough to take it on as its a vote loser.
  
  The present govt is tinkering with it again, but it costing billions of pounds to you and me, and whilst we want to help those that need help, im sure like me you see every day english people playing the system
  it should be a system that helps those in need, but also gets people to work where they can.
  for some being on the dole appears to get you more dosh than working cos they know how to play the system. that cant be right
  some have told me they get more on benefits than working so cant afford to get a job!
  
  so maybe barryw my views on this may well fall in line with your finking at least in parts
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. Yes there are plenty of our own lazy so and sos taking advantage and that is bad enough but to extend that the lazy so and sos from other parts of the world adds insult to injury.
  
  The fact is we do have excessively generous benefits in this country and they trap people into state dependancy. It has been made worse and more generous by wooly thinking from politicians on all sides.
  
  Cutting these benefits may be a vote loser for Labour but those who are State dependant are less likely to vote for us anyway. Indeed many hard pressed, hard working and overtaxed people will be motivated to vote for us if we promise a crack down.
  
  There are plenty of figures available those demonstrate the increase in dependancy over the last 10 years or so.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  When I re-read what I had just written it does not make sense unless I make clear that when referring to 'us' I mean the Conservative Party. Those who know me will realise but there are likely to be others who will not know.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  barryw
  we probably are closer than you fink on this issue
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  Well, as you know I'v already been on here trying to make some sense of Kens move. Never did find how a rank Socialist(kens words)can go from that to a right wing conservative party.
  But I suppose he has his reasons.
  
  I have worked with Ken on a number of Issues locally and Nationally and when hes on song hes good to have around, but sadly when hes off song is the time Im glad he joined that lot.
  
  I think Ken has isolated himself now, but i suspect hes looking at his working career(and rightly so) and dipping out of the time consuming politics.
  
  I wish Kens brother every success
• keith, Dover wrote:
  like Barry said in a recent posting
  after re reading my posting
  when I say THAT LOT
  I mean the conservative party.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  I am not going to comment on Ken's Red/Blue change,and we have had our differences although i was his deputy(until I resigned) and up to that point i didn't have too many problems with him,but after the last election he wrote on the Forum people don't like quitters,meaning me,I pointed out that may be the case,but they respected honesty.
  
  So what ever Ken decides to do that is great,and I am glad he still has that political frame of mind,because if he decides to get involved again,I believe he can do a good job,he is passionette in what he does and this Town needs that commitment from anyone who stands.
  
  We may not agree on everything/anything but that is o.k. with me as we can both fight our corner.
  
  When I first joined the Council that learned respected Councillor Jim Hood said these wise words,you can attack a persons manifesto but never the person.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  something has just sprung to mind.
  looking at the pic at the top here, does anyone remember that great film
  "the usual suspects"?
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  And all are ready made Mr Blues.......
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Bern
  Maybe not all
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ever since i took that picture I keep seeing a bag of chips in Nigels hand. For some reason I keep seeing this bag of chips out of the corner of my eye and always did. It must be some kind of optical illusion as i dont see it with any of the other guys in the shot. Is this weird? Am I in need of analysis? lol!!
  
  Of course they are all ready made newspaper boats... with nary a chip in sight!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  if you look at all the other paper boats
  they are all holding them except that is Nigel
  so maybe nigels is full of chips?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  but hang on, looks like barryw boat has sunk
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes its very telling about the positioning of the boats. Yes indeed poor oul BarryW's has sunk without trace. Jan Tranter's is held aloft and clearly indicates where Labour are in the opinion polls ( cough! wheeze!). Ken's boats arent too sure where they are, but Charlie is trying very hard, while Nigel's are bumbling along in no mans land with one eye already on the liquid lunch!! lol
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  just shows a picture tells a 1,000 stories
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Heres A bit of a challenge
  
  can anyone produce a photo of me surrounded by another political party with me as the only member of an opposition party
  £5 to charity if you can
• Guest 656 wrote:
  Ah! just read all these funny comments, they have put a smile on my face on this grey rainy day. Great Fun!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i notice that ken is keeping very quiet about his latest switch.
  
  maybe his colleagues that post on here, like susan , roger and nigel now and again, could shed some light on the matter.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  hello
  whilst we wait for replies, lets go back to the picture
  
  it looks like they have all been in a raffle any Barry is to bashful to show his raffle tickets
  one of these blokes who says "oh put it back in the hat if i win"
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  seems like "our ken" is being quiet on this issue.
  
  the blue people seem rather reticent too.
  
  how many bolt holes are left for him?
  
  i understand that the khmer rouge have a few vacancies at town council level.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Nobody took a nibble at that particular carrot so will now change the page above.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  THINK thats a bit of a shame that we didn't get Ken's or one of his party
  reply as to where he now stands, to make sure the electorate are clear who it is his latest party(non party) is.
  
  Its become all confusing.
  
  If I read it correct I think Ken is saying;
  
  
  
  Hes a Socialist at heart
  but supports the tories locally
  but has family ties via his brother so will support his aims to be elected
  a Labour MP
  
  
  OF course thats only my thoughts, its all very confusing
  lts hope it can be cleared up soon
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Keith,in the world anyone can change thier mind at any time on anything,even politics, but wether that Political Party would accept that person is of course open to the membership of that Party.
  I suspect that in the case of Ken,although he did some good work as a Cllr that if he applied to re-join the Labour Party i doubt wether he would be successful.
  Then of course if he did find a Political Party that suited his cause that would accept him that would be fine for everyone,if he didn't he could always stand as an Indie again.Personally i think he has backed himself into a corner,which is a shame but as he once told me 'People don't like quitter' which I never did when i left the Town Council i never left the Labour Party,I disagreed with what they were doing and resigned for which Ken now understands and agreed with but that was a matter of principle,but in my heart although the Labour Cllrs were the ones making the deceisions why i left,that never changed my belief in the L.P.
  I think Ken will take a rest now and put his feet up,a bit like you! Life changes and goes on.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  John
  I do understand your comments but need to make a few amendments;
  
  
  I have no Idea what Ken is up to these days, and thats up to him anyway,
  
  Certainly all that has changed with me is my lifestyle
  (not blowing my own trumpet here)
  
  Instead of devoting 24 hours a day to National/local politics and boy was it time consuming, you can either float through life doing as little as you please and then being in a safely held sea get re elected, I have never wanted to do that, and apart from living in the ward, thats the reason why i chose marginal Priory to stand as a councillor in.
  I gave 25 years of my life to it, and family life suffers, your lifes not your own.
  So now im just doing 37 hours a week as a job
  but not as you say putting my feet up
  cos i still run a youth club in priory as a volunteer
  3 footy clubs in aycliffe
  and bingo caller in aycliffe
  
  so hardly putting my feet up
  
  
  BUT I enjoy it
  
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The experts are saying that the era of cheap food is over.This is enough to spread alarm, particularly among the poorer members of our society, but should alarm all of us. Most will have seen for example the rise in bread prices in the local shops and they are predicted to rise even further.
  
  The global price of everything from fuel to wheat has gone ballistic, which in turn affects the production of everything else. Cattle feed quadrupling will push the prices of meat up and so on so on. Wheat being used to fuel jet engines will push the price of wheat even further, making the wheat used for food production soar.Wheat has suddenly become a hot property...the new fuel.Wheat plays a part in so much of what we eat today, hence the alarm of rising costs.
  
  Couple this to massively increased wealth in a Far East with a soaring population. This increased wealth means they will statistically eat more and eat more of our kind of food. Will there be a shortage one day. There could be. Maybe the answer lies in faster food production on home soil with perhaps the accelerated use of GM crops. A self contained sustainable food supply is the answer for the UK.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Further to my comment on food production...anyone ever see the movie Soylent Green??
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  As you say Paul, the poor and not so well off will be even worse off - they are now and will be more so in the future.
  
  I have said on here many times, that people have so much less in their pocket nowadays due to the ever-burdening rise in various taxes.
  
  Admittedly some increases in costs are outside Government control, but many are within their responsibility.
  
  Petrol tax for one - I put £40 in the car last week and it was no where near full up; I used to be able to fill it easily on £40, in fact I'm sure it wasn't so long ago, £20 would fill it.
  
  Over £26 of that £40 went to the Government in taxes - over £26, can you believe it ??
  
  There are so many other examples of this too.
  
  Do people on fixed income and on pensions get similar increases to pay for them ? no of course not - we're all getting poorer and have certainly lost the "feel-good" factor.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Ah, Soylent Green, I remember the scene where Edward G Robinson took the lethal injection, with the video screen of deer gamboling through the forest with classical music playing in the background, I had a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat watching that. At the end with Charlton Heston screaming out ' Soylent Green is People, they are eating people', a great movie.
• howard mcsweeneyType your name here..., dover wrote:
  the only real alternative to british trash is that french company who charge
  their french customers a lot less than us.
  
  they break the eu rules on a daily basis.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it is rather sad to see ken's recent behaviour.
  he has been a hard working stalwart for the town for ages, and an excellent mayor.
  
  met him a few times, came across a genuine bloke that was passionate in what he believed in.
  maybe he should have a complete break from politics/current affairs for a time and recharge his batteries.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  just heard that our betters have voted in the commons that we will not get
  a referendum on the lisbon treaty.
  
  our fuhrer argues that it is not a constiitution, so a vote from us plebs is not required.
  
  would be interesting to hear views.
  
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I myself am happy this vote was defeated because its right that Parliament should decide in these cases. There is so much misplaced emotion at the mention of the EU, all whipped up in murderous style by the lowly frenzied tabloids, so a vote that might actually turn out to be the best outcome for this country is hard to sensibly reach. People become animated by for example the prospect that their bananas need to be straight and same such stuff, which always was and still is rubbish. A true Murdochism.
  
  Hopefully our MP's wont be influenced by such stuff and will be able to decide what is actually best for us here in the UK.
  
  Interesting to note, under new leader Nick Clegg, the Libdems are in total disarray over this issue and have in fact double crossed, nay, backstabbed their new leader quite forcefully. Oh dear!..three of his frontbench spokesmen have resigned too. A call will no doubt go out now, yet again, yawn, for whiskey loving Charles Kennedy to step to the fore! God forbid!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  all very 1970's paul, we have moved on since then, the issue of bananas, cucumbers and sausages has died out, only a few sun readers still subscribe to those theories.
  
  i have read twice this week about a clause allowing eu ministers to make amendments to the treaty without recourse to the MEP'S.
  
  you may ask what tabloids i have read.
  
  the organs involved were the independent and the times, not a tit to be seen in either.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I agree with Howard, it's not just the Sun, Mail or other tabloids that will make headlines from this - it is a disgrace.
  
  It was also a disgrace the Lib-Dems abstained - how can you abstain on such an important issue ?
  
  I am very angry that Gordon Brown has double-crossed us - the whole Country; he did in fact say that we would have a referendum and I'm sure that if the Labour MP's had a free choice they would have voted for a referendum - even if they would have voted it as O.K. we should have been given the chance to vote.
  
  You can bet your life, if they find it this easy to sell us down the river, they'll do it with the Euro too.
  
  Whatever your politics, we should all be voting for the benefits to the United Kingdom and this is NOT to our advantage.
  
  History will show that this has been the worst decade of Labour rule for Britain and its (native) populace - by that I mean the great British public.
  
  We may be paid more (salary-wise), but so much worse off (Yes John, I know you said you were much better off and I'm happy for you, but so many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are poorer now, in real terms, than ever before).
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Roger
  As Iv said and John has added from time to time, this is the best Govt we had for some time.
  
  
  I realise you cant come to bring yourself to agree to that because you sit on the other side of the fence, but if you talk to many people(which i thought you did) you will see how better off they are.
  
  
  No one denys there can be improvements, and even this govt says it can improve in a number of areas, but I dont want to go back to the days of the conservatives putting millions on the dole because they felt it the best way forward.
  many people remember those dark days, and it will take a lot to convince people that the conservatives have changed from those dreary days.
  
  Its easy to attack any govt, and to be honest iv done it when the tories had there time, but in todays modern society, we need to know the conservatives wont lurch back to the right of the party, because it aint what we want.
  
  As for the Lib dems, they have never been any more than a protest party and whilst thats healthy for democracy, they will hardly ever have to make any major decisions, so lifes easy for them.
  
  
  anyway enough said
  back to me sugar puffs
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - I would be pleased to see some justification for your comment on the Government so we can properly debate the points.
  
  This has been a pretty rotten and incompetent Government. They claimed they would be whiter than white but the financial sleeze started virtually the day they were elected.
  
  The economy that Gordon Brown claimed as a success has been exposed as no more than smoke and mirrors. Inflation up at, 4.1% (RPI) in fact over the last 2 years 'grocerie inflation' has been 17%.
  
  We are all paying far too much tax that it is having a detrimental effect on the economy.
  
  We are living with a sea of debt, individual and Government, and that is really starting to bite.
  
  Pensions and savings have been destroyed, violent crime is up.
  
  They have increased the spending on education yet standards still decline.
  
  Same with the NHS - average waiting times are up - OK no-one has to wait more than 18 months any more, but that has only been achieved by placing targets as a higher priority than clinical need. People seriously ill have to wait longer so varicose veins can be dealt with!
  
  The first duty of any Government in the defence and security of the nation. They have even failed that, they have not matched Defence spending to the Defence commitments that they make. Defence is in crisis at a time when we are at war.
  
  Now they have betrayed their election promised and the British people by denying a referendum on the EU Constitution. This is the most open betrayal of an election pledge ever.
  
  My conclusion is that we can no longer work in the EU and we must now exit the EU all together.
  
  The battle over the Treaty is not over - ironically it will be the unelected House of Lords where the battle for democracy will continue. Once again they will be fighting the Government in the interests of democracy.
  
  So, Keith - I have given some of my reasons for saying that this Labour Government has been the worse and most incompetent since before WW2. What are your reasons for saying different?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have seen an interesting contribution from Andrew Lilco on the subject of the EU on centreright.com that I think worth reproducing here. His argument makes sense and if the result of this betrayal is to propel us out of the EU then all for the good...
  
  """So, there isn't going to be a referendum, and the Lisbon Treaty will be ratified. David Cameron has said, quite rightly, that we cannot leave matters there. I take that to mean that, if we are elected, Cameron will seek to renegotiate our position within the EU, opening up a large number of issues about which Eurosceptics have been unhappy for many years. I hope that such a renegotiation will be fruitful, and we should be planning exactly how to do it, but we should be under no illusions as to the difficulty of the task. Alas! it seems to me now that without both serious planning of exactly what we are after and a high level of good will and willingness to self-sacrifice from our European partners (implying consistently secure domestic political positions for at least the major Member States), this renegotiation has perhaps little more than 50% chance of success, and we may be forced to withdraw from the EU altogether. If so, that will prove a damning indictment of this Labour government's mishandling of the issues for more than a decade."""""
  
  An interesting angle. Previously I thought a post-ratification referendum would be a good approach but now I am not sure. Andrew Lilco's approach is a good one.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW interesting but I cannot seriously believe anyone would want us to pull out of the European Union. It wont come as a surprise to anyone to know that I am a supporter of said organization, and have been all along, because as I see it the EU is becoming ever more necessary. We need to be part of a greater whole to have some significant weight in the new emerging world .Of course there are many reasons to remain in, such as the great trade opportunities it offers and so on.
  
  You must remember that the Conservatives fought countless elections now on a thinly disguised anti- european ticket ( who can forget Willaim Hague's save the pound fiasco) and were soundly beaten each time. While I feel the government would lose a referendom at the current time, as the electorate would like nothing more than to give them a bloody nose on europe, nevertheless though...when a general election comes round people remember their jobs, their living standards and so on.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  pAUL B
  I think you have said it all, people recall as iv said earlier the high employment actually engineered by the tories, but today mortgage rates have kept low(remember when they spirralled out of control under the tories)
  family tax credit has helped many a family
  
  Like the last 3 General elections people are not stuid, they study politics and politicians, and they know they can effect change.
  For 3 elections they said they feel safer under a labour, thats not me saying it, it has hap;ened in real life.
  
  And from my discussions with people that aint changed, David Cameron, our local charlie, aint making inroads.
  
  We can attempt to hype it all up on Doverforum, but look at ho many contribute (thats not to say they dont have a view)
  but in the wider electorate are a long way from wanting things to change
  
  As iv said before Our Barryw was humilated for 3 elections saying everyone was going to vote tory, its labours last few months, and 3 times the people spoke up and said NO
  
  I hope barryw isn't to dissapointed at the next general election.
  he wont ever agree with me, and i wont agree with him
  
  But it will be for the people to decide, and decide they will, im convinced by the people i speak to outside of the labour party that lsabour will be back again come the next general election, with a reduced majority, and Gwyn wont be able to put his feet up yes, he will have another 5 years
  
  k
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So Keith, that is your total justification for this current rotten Government is it:
  
  The unworkable, complex tax credits. Taking extra taxes off people just to give a little back after deducting the high administration costs...
  
  Then some misrepresentation of the record of Conservative Government that left office 11 years ago.
  
  Perhaps I should remind people of the mess Labour left for the Conservatives to clear up last time: the hidden unemployment of subsidised inefficient loss making dinosaur industries, inflation at nearly 30% a year, a fiscal crisis, bodies left unburied - Britain the sick man of Europe going cap in hand to the IMF.
  
  I am guilty in the past 3 velection merely of being optimistic. I am sure you have the same attitude when you were in opposition.
  
  Change is coming - open your eyes and you will see what is happening out there. It does not take excessive optimism any more to understand that.
  
  Brown is rumbled, he is not up to the job, Clegg likewise has shown himself up..... The good times will return.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some very interesting points made here made here from mnay posters.
  
  firstly, keith made a very valid point about people feeling safer under labour.
  those of us over the age of 40 remember the mass unemployment, repossesion of houses that occurred, and the social breakdown that went with it.
  despite the government being very unpoular at the moment, and deservedly so, for the first time in my memory an administration has made the effort to get the so called unemployable back to work.
  
  the results say it all, more people in paid employment in this country than at any time in our history.
  don't get me wrong, a lot of taxpayers money has been thrown at our problems, the results are not commensurate.
  
  paul
  have to disagree with you over the EU, any company can sell goods overseas if they produce the product that people want at the right price with a set delivery time from receipt of order.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  apologies i missed a couple of points.
  
  the tax credit system(though a maze to understand) has put people back to work that would otherwise still be at home watching jeremy kyle then this morning.
  
  that assumes that they would have got out of bed by then.
  
  the blue people have not explained what would happen to these people if they lost that.
  
  the pensioners now have winter fuel payment, don't hear many stories about hypothermia anymore.
  what would the bluen people do about that?
  is the fuel payment safe.?
  
  from next month the pensioners and disabled will get free bus travel the
  length and breadth of the UK.
  
  would that be safe with a change of government?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  So there you go Barryw howard adds t y short list(which was only a taster_ believe me my eyes are wide open, I hav long memory of nearing losing my house becuse of the tories putting up interest rates so high, i dont want that back.
  
  tories still need to explain where they are to get all this promised money from, as it don't add up.
  
  Iv already put a list of achievments, main thing being camn you trust the conservatives? im not convinced and nor is joe public and thats where it matters.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  does anyone know how our honourable member voted on this issue?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  GP voted with the 'dishonourable members'. Where else?
  
  I personally would like to see massive cuts in wasteful public spending. Unfortunately George Osbourn does not.
  
  So stop misrepresenting our policies and history Keith.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Changeing direction slightly I must ask the question... what sort of a society are we creating where our own servicemen are told NOT to wear their uniforms in public, for fear of being abused and even attacked. Is this the craziest situation you ever heard. I just dont understand this at all. RAF personnel have been experiencing real difficulty.The once great British forces, once the backbone, once the very fabric of our society, now sneered at, abused, and shunned. Whats gone wrong?
  
  Our society has indeed changed. The politicians are forever telling us, and did so even last night on Question Time, that our multi ethnic multi cultural society is what makes this country great. But does it?? In reality are we just all hopelessly divided and heading for wreckage.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  It is only a minority PaulB and we must not give the impression that these idiots represent the majority.
  
  Like you I get angered by the ignorance these twerps show. A client of mine who is soon off to Afghanistan had to pop into Canterbury in his 'desert cams' only to be met with a torrent of abuse from some moronic student, callinmg him a 'child killer'.
  
  Those in uniform serving our country are among the best of us and it is time everyone showed their support and in particular this Government which has failed to properly fund them properly.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i thought it was all a bit of a storm in a tea cup.
  
  service personel in uniform can be a target for a drunken yob wanting to prove something.
  
  a few people here have had a go at paras when they were here.
  presumably they think that soldiers decide what war they can join in.
• BETH, ST RADS wrote:
  Im back!. Did anyone miss me? .
  
  What is going on in Dover?. No carnival another let down for the towns people. so much complaining i could do about Dover but i would be here all night!
  Nice to see the regulars on here bickering as usual.
  Love from
  Beth xx
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Agree fully Howard, our soldiers cannot choose the conflicts they are involved in. It really is a bit of media hype, associated with the ignorance of some civilians. However I do remember being physically threatened and called a 'sponging student w***er' by two servicemen in Canterbury a number of years ago, aswell as a a few minor unprovoked incidents with our resident unit in Dover, just proving ignorance is everywhere.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dt
  
  it does indeed cut both ways, a work neighbour who ran the "flotilla and firkin" as it was then asked some drunken soldiers to leave.
  
  the beating he took, left him in hospital for weeks, never fully recovered.
  
  he was a young, very fit bloke.
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  I have to speak up for our armed services behalf on this on going topic. I had many friends and pen pals who served abroad in troubled times and regularly received "blueys " from them. What i read from their lonely and heartfelt letters home was upsetting. The way they had been treated by locals stoned, spat at, name called etc was disgusting. Also lack of essential equipment and food etc. Our british armed services have to go where they are sent by our goverment and should never expect to be abused by the people in their homeland for the job they do.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Beth
  Your right, he armed forces deserve better and should wear the uniform with pride
• Guest 644 wrote:
  It's all a bit of a contradiction isn't it?
  
  Our brave troops out in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve our respect and total support in their work overseas. At the same time one wouldn't want to go anywhere near a bunch of drunken squaddies on the lash down town.
  
  I know the fellow Howard is referring to and having one's leg broken by a drunk RAF officer and his mates jumping up and down on it really isn't conducive to respect for the armed forces. It really couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.
  
  Of course there are bad apples, but respect works both ways.
  
  
  
  
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Isn't this a bit along the lines of the fella who commented on nurses recently. I will try to explain my admittedly odd train of thought......a peer recently made comments about some (not all) nurses indicating that some of the nurses he had encountered while in hospital were dirty, ill-mannered and unpleasant. He was clear that he did not mean all nurses and was commenting only on what he had seen. My own perspective, as one who works in and around health and social services and has done for many years, is that he was right - there are many nurses who have been recruited in recent years who are uncouth, unprofessional and insensitive. There are many to whom I would entrust my life, and have done so, but there are many with whom I am ashamed to work. They are a reflection of the standards Society condones as acceptable, "laddishness", booziness, frankness where it is inappropriate and would be best left quiet. My own experience is that years ago, we were just as reckless, sometimes wildly so, but we left it at the door, we never, ever, allowed it to impinge on work, we raised the professional standards while on duty, and would rather have lopped off a limb than discuss our private lives while providing care and support to someone. I believe the armed forces are the same - clearly we should support our armed forces - it it outrageous that they live in poor conditions and have to endure abuse and hostility while providing a service to their country. but they too have lowered the bar, have dumbed down, if you like, and have accepted a lower standard of behaviour of late than they used to. It all seems to reflect the standards of our current society........not sure if I have been clear enough!!!!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bern
  
  i think i know what you are saying.
  
  it annoys me greatly when someone says our a) police b) armed forces
  c) firepeople d) forum editors,e) traffic wardens do a great job.
  in reality most professions are the same, some good people, some bone idle, some not up to standard.
  
  the only group of people that i have never had reason to doubt are paramedics.
  
  i bet there are one or two idiots though.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BERN
  tHINK I TAKE your line on this one.
  
  
  The armed forces put there lives on the line as do the police/firefighters
  so cant be classed like any other job.
  
  but as has been said there is good and bad in all of life
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I don't quite understand what you are saying Keith. I think what Bern is saying makes sense, although I may be reading between the lines.
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  DT
  Just saying they all desere better agreeing with BERN
  
  KEITH
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  they all deserve better?
  
  interesting thought.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Are you a model citizen?
  Do you wake up bright eyed in the morning to the cymbol crashing God Save the Queen, turn towards the flag or a picture of our beloved Queen and salute with chest out and shoulders back?
  
  Guess not then...me neither.
  
  But according to Lord Goldsmith, one time Attorney General under Mr Blair, there has been a falling away of national pride and identity. There just isnt the same level of chest bursting pride in being British anymore.Nobody gives much of a damn one way or the other, particularly among the young it seems. Probably too many foreigners here spoiling the pure blood brew!!
  
  In fact this is a story in similar vein, is it not, to the one about soldiers/ military personnel not being encouraged to wear their uniform in public for fear of 21st century reprisals. Where once they were applauded by model citizens, they are now despised by a disfunctional society.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  so maybe mr goldsmith may have a point then?
  
  One thing is sure society in many areas has changed and not for the better,Its many Govts fault of both blue and red complextion before some come on here and say its all labours fault.
  
  What matters most is that in many areas we have lost pride, lost our way forward.
  
  
  It can only get better
  It has to get better
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that the oath of allegiance would be a boon in making people feel
  part of something, rather than the split multicultural rubbish we have now.
  
  that has now been acknowledged as a big mistake by most factions in our society.
  
  i think that oath should be to the country and the monarch bit forgotten.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Getting back to Paulb's article on the council tax, Iv always said theres to many councils, and now we are footing the bill to keep them all running
  Kent County Council
  Dover District Council
  Dover Town council
  We don't need 3 councils
  just look at priory, maxton and elms vale as an example(this is duplicated across the District)
  Priory has
  one county councillor
  three District councillors
  four Town councillors
  
  thats 8 councillors!!! for one ward, and we are paying!!!!
  
  When the Town council came into being was the time that the District or county should have been amalgamated with other authorities or done away with all together.
  
  can we afford to continue?
  
  I hope very soon a real hard takes place of all these councils
  and they dont all fight to stay in being.
  This is about value for money, and 8 councillors is not value for money
  thats without the cost(and they are big) of keeping the KCC/DDC/DTC in operation.
  
  Change has got to come, and these councils need to look at what is best for Jo public, and how much they are costing us
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You make a good point Keith.
  
  Once we get a directly elected Police Commissioner, who is also in charge of the local prosecution service, and give true independence to schools so there is no need for an education authority, we could indeed get rid of the County tier of Government.
  
  There would be an argument to make the Districts a bit bigger, but not too big as decisions should be made a close to those represented as possible. Perhaps to amalgamate two Districts would be enough to take on the remaining duties of KCC.
  
  I would be against giving Town and Parish Councils any additional or statutory responsibilities.
  
  Naturally we should also get rid of the EU tier of government all together.....
  
  The other issue is to have English votes for English laws in Parliament and a reduction in the number of MPs to about 500 with the size of Constituency populations equalised.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I should add to what I said previously, the Regional Assemblies and their Civil Servants should also go and not be replaced.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  There are bits that we agree with;
  
  I share your view on regional assemblies, not local enough, decisions being made in surrey for Kent isn't right.
  
  I dont share your view on Town councils, I believe more powers should be given to them, but first they have to prove they are able to cope with it.
  
  Town councils is the most local you get, Iv been frustrated by decisions sometimes made by all 3 councils.
  
  We do have a problem;
  
  on councils all parties and individuals are struggling to find people to stand for councils, there are a number of reasons or this;
  
  some being(and theres more)
  1; people can't afford to give up employment to give time to the job
  2; Central govt(of all colours)don't realy believe in giving to much power
  to local councils
  3; bickering at local/national level
  4; unable to achieve because of restrictions
  
  
  
  Theres lots more, but theres a taster
  
  
  So we end up with people who have time on there hands, but may not be the best people for the job, I'm not saying I have the answers to this,
  At a time when voting is very very low it is becoming very concerning that people are switching off of politics Again there are many reasons for this, and a lot people only see prime ministers question time and think thats what politics is all about, and see this as a childish imput from MP's
  sad, but it has to change.
  
  In my time i had weekly visits with bill newman and Clive meridith to local schools, and many youngsters are very interested in politics, and the local/national scene, but are switched off by the way national/local politicians act.
  
  It can be done with the right will.
  but I think we are bogged down with the same old format,
  
  
  Heres to a brighter future
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Just been watching the Budget speeches.
  
  I wont comment on the technical points raised as that is best done when I have seen the details. I have learned that what is said in the speech under this Government bares little resemblance to what is in the detail.
  
  But what a boring speech. Budgets are usually a bit boring but this one takes the buscuit. I have seen every budget speech for the last 2o years or more and this one takes the biscuit. It was not just that it was delivered poorly, Darling speaks like a robot, the content was 'leaked' so there were few suprises.
  
  Presentationally it did have its tricks, instead of comparing an increase in say, Child Benefit for instance, with last year he kept comparing it with 11 years ago so it sounded better than it is. I lost count with the number of comparison with 11 years ago. There were also some re-announcements to pad it out and some blatent lies. Over ptimistic again on the economy even though they have downgrade the growth rate.
  
  David Cameron had what is know to be the hardest job in the House, responding to the Budget. He utterly demolished Darling who visibly wilted and shunk bakc under DC's onslaught. Brown sat there with a manic fixed grin.
  
  I laughed out loud a few times. The biggest prat in Government, Ed Balls, shouted 'so what' when DC mentioned that we have the highest tax burden in our history. This budget, of course, includes tax rises for the lowest paid and for small companies (not annouced but in the book).
  
  That demonstrates an appalling attitude and shows how little they care about families trying to manage their budgets.
  
  Later in response to more outbursts from Ed Balls, DC made what will be a classic put down, 'I know the Rt Hon Gentleman is the Minister for Childen, that does not mean has has to act like one'.
  
  Another line of DC rang true - Darling proposes to tax us more but some people can fill in some forms and get some of it back.... That sums up this Government.
  
  All together this budget from Darling was about a failing Government that sees itself as having to nanny and interfere in every aspect of our lives, expect us serfs to pay up our taxes and be grateful to get a few crumbs back.
  
  Also- from a financial point of view, many measures they are taking are exactly the opposite to what a good Government should be doing in reponse to an economic slow down. More trouble ahead.
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  well there goes our barryw again
  
  You do have to compare to 11 years go, cos we were in serious trouble
  UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES PEOPLE HAVN'T FORGOTTEN;
  don;t forget those mortgage rates
  high unemployment
  hate of workin class
  hate of unions sticking up for working men/women
  starving local govt of funds
  
  to name but a few.
  
  
  As I'v stated before people now trust labour, and still cant under the present D.C. leadership bring themselves to change.
  
  Of course Barryw will like the past 3 general elections give the impression that the tide is changing, but in reality it aint, talk to the people
  I do, people not ready for change.
  
  here we go for another table 5 years
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Actually Keith the opposite of what you say is true.
  
  Ken Clarke left Labour a golden legacy 11 years ago and even Tony Blair admitted that.
  
  Interest rates and inflation was low and getting lower, public finances in good shape with much borrowing paid back, unemployment was reducing fast, productivity up - way up...........
  
  We have had a benign world economic climate for the last 15 years with good growth so there can be no excuse that now a downturn is occuring we are unprepared...So compare to what we now have...
  
  Unemployment is going up, inflation is up at 4.1% (RPI), interest rates, we have the highest in the EU. The tax rises in this budget will increase prices further. Food price increases incidentally is 9%.
  
  Productivity is down.
  
  Government borrowing is at a record high, four times the level targeted by Labour 5 years ago, £160bn compared to £42bn. Private borrowing is also at a record high and a serious problem.
  
  Savings are at a record low.
  
  Our taxes have never been higher and Labour are still increasing them when other countries are able to respond to the downturn correctly by reducing taxes. Even the Germans have been able to reduce taxes!!!
  
  The responsibility for this economic mess lays directly with Gordon Brown he did not prepare for the bad times. He spent, borrowed and wasted 11 years of growth to create the serious problem we now have.
  
  To quote DC - he did not mend the roof when the sun was shining, now we are in a downpour..............
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i could not agree more with those comments on the budget booze.
  
  not only the death knell strikes again for our few remaining pubs, but who is actually hit?
  
  the bloke/blokess that goes into the pub 2 or 3 times a week for a few pints of real or guiness, will pay the bill for the cheap lager(with a very high alcohol content) drinkers, that will then get stroppy and make peoples life a misery.
  cider!!
  
  there is the delightful magners, or the cheap and nasty white cider in 2 litre bottles that decorate pencester gardens or the river that runs through it.
  
  moving on, wine.
  something that many people enjoy a glass with their dinner.
  proven to aid digestion, make the food taste nicer etc etc.
  
  i will stop there, i could go on for ever.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Being a Conservative, I guess I would agree with Barry, but I can come to these conclusions without any input from anyone else.
  
  I'm sorry Keith, you can't keep going on about what happened 11 years or more ago, everything that is rotten in our society, you (Labour) have caused it.
  
  After this amount of time, you cannot blame previous Governments and harp on about the past all the time.
  
  I cannot think of one thing that is better now than it was 12 years ago - crime, nhs, education, society, police, tax (all the various stealth and not so stealth taxes), no more feel-good-factor, disposable income, immigration, pride in being English/British.
  We are worse off in every aspect of our lives after 11 years of Labour - unless you are a skiving, useless layabout on benefit.
  
  They lie, they cheat, they ignore public concerns and demands for a referendum on OUR future, there's been more sleaze than any other Govenment in history and all of them are more incompetant than any other Government I have known or can remember.
  
  God help the British people - or should I say English, 'cos the Welsh seem to be doing very well and so do the Scots.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Roger
  You won't be surprized that I don't agree with MOST of your comments.
  When you come out from behind your tinted glasses you will see a different world.
  
  No, we shouldn't harp on about the past, but as iv said people have long memories and thats why labour has been in for terms(and likely to be a 4th) because of those dreary memories of being screwed in evey direction by a conservative govt.
  
  And people are clearly saying they don't want to go back to those days.
  
  You probably need to talk to teachers and those in education(cos you obviously havn't)who are realy pleased with education and the funding that goes with it.
  
  Don't tal to me about sleaze with how your govt in the past(and some of your party still are being caught)got involved in it.
  
  It is down to the people, and once you speak with them you will see abour will be there for a 4th term, I know it hurts, but thats life.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  OK Keith. You want to get on the subject of Governments 'screwing people'.
  
  Look at the impact of this budget on three people. These are real examples (no names or other info for confidentiality reasons).
  
  The first lady I have been advising in respect of pensions aspects of her divorce. She is a Teaching Assistant earning £8,000 a year in north Kent.
  
  In 2007/8 tax year she paid £343 income tax.
  In 2008/9 she will pay £513 income tax. That is applying next years personal tax allowance and the 20% tax rate and is due to the removal of the 10% band. She has no children so will not benefit from those handouts and she lives in the countryside and has to run a car and will be clobbered by the fuel escalator (delayed 6 months, big deal).
  
  Then there is the trainee electrician for whom I set up a small Stakeholder pension. He earns £15,000 a year. His tax will increase by £30 exactly next year. He has to pay in a bit more to his pension (£2 pm) as well because he will get only 20% instead of 22% tax credited to it. He too lives in the countryside and has no children relying on his car.
  
  Then there is the plumber who works just enought to keep his taxable income below 40% earning £39,000 last year. He will be better off, by £450 next year. He also lives in the country and needs a largish vehicle. The extra motoring costs will easily eat up his income tax reduction. His wife is ill and his children are grown up, he gets no handouts either.
  
  All three enjoy a bottle of wine or beerevery now and then, none being binge drinkers.
  
  All of these people are being screwed over by your Government and the worse hit are the lowest paid.
  
  These are real people - not theory, not political point scoring. They are paying the price for Labour's mismanagement.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes indeed re taxation. Although I'm quietly a Labour supporter, but hopefully manage a neutral stance as best I can on here, well most of the time anyway, I am nevertheless beginning to feel beleagured with all the taxes doled out by the current government.
  
  I mean there is just nothing left untouched. Non binge drinkers are massacred now which seems a shame, cars are the same, and will be more so in 6 months time when a new petrol duty kicks in, you cant even go out for dinner as Roger says without being triple clobbered over the wine. And Howard made a very valid point that these rises will close whats left of the pubs.
  
  I spoke to a woman this morning whose friend manages 2 pubs and they are quite upset with this Budget. Not only are they reeling from the smoking ban, but the rise in alcohol could spell a deathknell for what's left of their business.
  
  It was an unsubtle Budget.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Senior Citizens better off,my Mum and Stepfather loved the budget,my Mother-in - law (Ex Tory) loved it she is 91 and gets everything found for her virtually,families with Young Children get more,I get less because i smoke(especially when I get hot) and like a drink every once in a while,i like alco-pops too,petrol doesn't bother me much because i use my bike walk or use Public Transport, so yes some people will pay more some less but guess what in General those that need it most get more,those of us who work,drive,drink and smoke have to pay for those who are not so well off,a good Socialist budget.
  As i said I will lose a little but i don't look at it on what I look on it for what i will lose/gain but what those in need will gain,free Travel for the over 60s and heavily subsides travel for our youngsters on the County wide busses another Goverment idea.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Lets look at the local Council how they are doing,Sports Centre rebuild/refurbishment,cancelled/delayed.Tides rebuild /refurbishment /delayed/cancelled.Aylesham Sports Centre disappeared off the face of the Earth. Car Parking up Council Houses rents up,Council Tax up the max 4.95 per cent,Rogers baby Tourism cut by £14,000 Charity grants cut by £1720 Cemetary charges up,sea defences cut by £70,000,Sports facilities at the Danes and Elms Vale can't have the boilers they need cut by £10,000,it is so bad that we can't even provide 2 Dog bins in Astor Ave to help protect the 3000 children who use the Schools in and around the Tower Hamlets 9 Schools to protect them from Toxacaris at £2 a week to empty,why there is no budget to buy and install the 2 Dog Bins,if you want to see a financial crisis look very closly.
  We are looking at Papers that tell you about WORLD CLASS TOWN,when we can't spend any money on T.C.M. AS Ben Bano the Labour Leader said recently a promise of Cake in the future but not much bread now.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So, JHG - a good Socialist budget then is one where someone on £8,000 a year pays more income tax and someone on £39,000 a year pays less.
  
  I see.....that does make sense.
  
  We have the highest tax burden in our history - Ed Balls says 'So What' and the less well off are paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than any other section of our society...... That is certainly the true face of Socialism..
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Well barryw
  we wont agree, but the people keep electing labour, that must tell you something?
  
  its about trust
  and still today people locally are saying the cant trust the
  conservatives
  not politcal point scoring FACT
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I certainly trust Labour - to make a total b***s up of the economy. They manage it all the time.
  
  You really should get up to date with the many regular surveys that are carried out Keith. You are significantly out of date in what you say. All has changed.
  
  I note that you have not denied or tried to defend the Labour Government for raising taxes on the less well off.... (those in work anyway...).
  
  I have now absorbed the impact of the NI changes and now find my client on £39k a year will actually be £102 worse off because of higher NI costs.
  
  Anyone being responsible by saving into a pension will also have a hidden extra tax to pay as well. Someone paying £100 pm into a pension will have to increase his payment to £102.56 to keep pace. The alternative would be to reduce the payment and therefore his eventual pension. Worse hit again will be those who a less well off in that bracket earning under £16000 where they done get any net benefit from the reduced basic rate of tax.
  
  
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I need to say a couple of things!! First - an oath of fielty sounds a little feudal to me, and what about republican patriots? Patriotic about the country but unequivocally opposed to a monarchy......and whatever we say about the blue and red governments (although Labour seems to have abdicated the right to wear red...) I, for one, can never forget the Miners strike (we were there, supporting them), Greenham (ditto), the heartlessness and the suffering. Whatever happens now - and I am clear about my loathing for TBlair - those dark days will live in our memories forever. Lest we forget............
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  getting back to the comments made by roger.
  
  "everyone is worse off".
  
  tell that to the state pensioners, with their winter fuel payment, free bus travel locally, being extended nationally in a few weeks.
  
  tell that to the low paid workers that now have a minimum wage.
  
  tell that to the previously long term unemployed that were forgotten under the tories, but now get tax credits, that has given them the chance to get back to work, get self respect etc.
  every time i aske the blue people to say what will happen to these benefits of there is a change of government, i am met with a resounding silence.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Last posting is exactly what i'v been trying to break gently to Roger and
  Barryw.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard....
  
  What about the Teaching Assistant on £8000 who will pay around £500 more tax next year...indeed everyone who earns under £16000 whos tax is going up and will pay more into their pensions...
  
  What about those who's NI is going up...
  
  What about the rate of real inflation rate, not the mickey mouse CPI, with prices going up much faster than pensioners incomes.
  
  What about the winter fuel payments - what Darling did not say is that it is one year only. That is of course just so he can announce it again next year to make him sound more generous nearer to an election...
  
  What about our record tax burden.
  
  Every family in the UK is worse off as a result of this Governments mismanagement.
  
  OK - you mention the minimum wage and tax credits, typical socialist ideas that lock people in to State dependance and low incomes.
  
  This Government (and clearly its supporters) are not living in the real world. They are no longer fooling most people, only themselves.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  You need to have a re think I would hate to see you cry after labour wins the next general election AGAIN.
  
  
• Beth, St rads wrote:
  Ding Ding 2nd round. Boys why all the bickering?. I suggest a charity boxing match to get rid of all the ill feelings that surface on this forum. Any one agree?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Beth - just good political comment, that is what this section is for.
  
  I do get a bit fed up with the lack of constructive debate from certain quarters though, failing to address the issues raised.
  
  But then if you have a weak a political platform, trying to defend the indefencable, as Labour, that is all they can do I suppose.... works in my favour really.
• BETH, ST RADS wrote:
  GLOVES ON PLS BOYS
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Beth, what a good idea! can I nominate Vic Matcham from our side,I will hold the Towel
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  i disagree with your comments about "working" tax credits encouraging state dependancy.
  
  it has actually got the so called unemployable into a poistion that they can take up a low ranking job and actually gain for once.
  
  under the conservatives, there was no point in going out to work, some people would lose too much income.
  
  the facts speak for themselves, there are more people employed in this country than ever before.
  
  they even have to drag in immigrants to make up the shortfall in labour due the economic boom.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Beth St Rads
  Fights don't solve anything, look at the world today, all this fighting solves little.
  
  As to Barryw he has his view and continues to look through tinted glasses
  and thats his right.
  
  I realy wanted to try to save his feelings(see i can be a little caring!!()
  Hes gone on here and previous forums spouting the same old rubbish that the tories are going to win general election.
  
  All im saying is, people out there(the voters) dont trust the conservatives
  and barryw will be dissapointed again.
  
  It is hard for Barryw to face this i do understand, being out of office for so long, and he knows its so unlikely to change, but he has to spout off in the hope someone will listen
  
  but there not !!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - you really do come up with a right load of old b*** s**t
• keith, Dover wrote:
  barryw
  and you fink you dont?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith.
  
  I think I have tried to explain this to you before but it appears that I have not done so simply enough for you to understand.
  
  This is a section devoted to political discussion.
  
  I have made some posts regarding aspects of the budget, a topical political subect.
  
  I critisised the budget on a number of points.
  
  As a Labour supporter you are quite free to defend the Government that you support and you do that by taking up on the points that I raised and challenging them, explaining the Governments point of view, perhaps by justifying why you consider it right to increase the burden of taxation on the lower paid.
  
  I could then respond on the same subject exchanging views. That can be an interesting process.
  
  But what do you do is not political discussion, what you posted was this:
  
  """"""As to Barryw he has his view and continues to look through tinted glasses
  and thats his right.
  
  I realy wanted to try to save his feelings(see i can be a little caring!!()
  Hes gone on here and previous forums spouting the same old rubbish that the tories are going to win general election.
  
  All im saying is, people out there(the voters) dont trust the conservatives
  and barryw will be dissapointed again.
  
  It is hard for Barryw to face this i do understand, being out of office for so long, and he knows its so unlikely to change, but he has to spout off in the hope someone will listen
  
  but there not !!!!"""""""""""
  
  That is not political discussion. It does not address anything that I posted on the budget. It is pointless and personalised twaddle. You are not addressing any of the political issues raised. It makes you look a total idiot and gives the impression that you are unable to justify the Governments actions.
  
  Thats fine by me, it is difficult to defend the indefencable.
  
  My advice is not to post unless you have a direct and intelligent response to what is said, otherwise you are showing yourself up.
  
  I normally charge £130 an hour for advice, I will let you off that.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard. outside of Government spin I have seen no evidence that the tax Credit system has provided the results that you describe.
  
  It is madness to have such an expensive and complicated system. It would be far better to abandon that system and use the money save to increase to nil rate band for income tax.
  
  I dont know whether the numbers would stack (might be interesting to see the figures) up but ideally I would like to see everyone who's income, based on a 35 hour week at what is the current minimum wage, lifted out of the tax bracket all together.
  
  Now that really would help the lowest paid and be cheap to administer.
  
  Another way of helping the lowest paid would be to abandon the minimum wage all together as I believe it to be counter productive and it sets a norm that locks people in to low incomes. This is a more complex economic argument to make on this forum though.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I have replied to some of your comments barryw but not willing to bore everyone with im right and your wrong cos we will never agree
  thats democracy.
  
  I will say again, talk to the every day person and they dont trust the conservatives thats what they are saying, you can choose to believe this or not thats your choice.
  
  On some aspects barryw you and I could even agree, I might be one of the old socialists(not many left these days)
  but things such as the benefits system realy get me going.
  tHE only difference between us is that you want to bring drastic measures such as hanging for those on benefits, where as I feel its time to sort it out for good, those that can work, should work, unless theres very good reason then consideration should be given to reducing benefits if they can work but dont.
  
  We also agree on some aspects of do gooders, iv fought(and still fighting) on an issue around my area where do gooders protect one family who cause havoc to the community, the kids out of control, most will probably end up in prison, education schools affected cos they dont attend school or are excluded.
  I recall sitting around a table with many do gooders and mr watkins, marion munt, and our roger, and was amazed at how everyone was protecting this family and had no thoughts for the local community who were being harrassed every day of the week.
  I left the meeting annoyed, and looking around that table none of these people were local to the area, so it didnt realy matter to them, also many were young and probably didnt have children not that makes a difference but it can help to understand the problems.
  
  You need to know how this family has terrorised the community for years and all agencies have let the local people down.
  
  I believe in a helping hand up, and not just paying people to stay at home,
  and this needs to be sorted out and fast.
  as iv said before on this forum Frank fields a labour MP was tasked to go away and look into the benefits system he came back with realy Radical ideas but blair threw it all out.
  
  There are many aspects which even i disagree with this Govt, bu nearly losing my house under your lot convinced me(ad many others)i cant afford your lot back.
  
  Im an honest type of guy, and this labour party is not the one i joined 25 years ago, but blair knew he had to move to middle England to get there vote, and he did well to achieve it, but i was never a blair fan, nor the changes to my party but thats life, i prefer even todays labour party to allowing your party to destroy people
  
  Your postings convince me why i packed up as a cllr, all very blinkered and all very personal also from my point of view giving 7 days a week and 24 hours a day wasnt doing much for family life so i got out
  very hard decision to make after so long at it
  i enjoyed my 25 years but now i have spare tme for family its great
  dont miss politics at all
  completely different life
  and im enjoying it
  anyway enough about me
  
  Baz baby
  you have your views i have mine
  we will never agree all we can do is respect each other has these views
  i wont ever convince you nor will you convince me
  but its the electorate that matters,
  
  anyway enough from me
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith, you say this in your post...
  
  """"you want to bring drastic measures such as hanging for those on benefits,"""""
  
  Come off it. Yes I would approve of the return of capital punishment and I believe that you often need to be kind to be cruel but I have certainly not ever and would not suggest any such thing. What an absurd comment for you to make.
  
  A long post but again you do not defend the budget which is what all this sprung up about. We do indeed believe diffferent things and what can be enlightening is discussion on why we think the things we do.
  
  You refer to boredom, presumably those who look into a political thread want to see some political discussion. Sadly most of your input is personalised absurities such as I previously emphasised rather than good political debate.
  
  This latest post of yours has not given any new information, no defence of your Government and says nothing of any substance and is more about self justification.
  
  You could at least be honest about your views, I certainly dont have any problems about expressing mine, even when they differ from Conservative policy and likewise I have often expressed disagreement with the official line, such as matching Labours spending plans. Whereas you have neither looked to defend the budget for raising the tax burden on the less well off or support my view that it is wrong. Instead you merely uttter the same old personalised tosh aimed a me. Alison thinks you in some strange way are obsessed with me!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  blimey matey
  and alison for that matter
  im not obsessed in any way, just having a little light hearted dscussion
  
  will leave it to howard and paulb on your postings
  
  have a nice day
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  To change tack....
  
  I clearly was not able to go to the Conservative Spring conference this weekend but I have been reading some of the speeches.
  
  William Hague must be the finest orator in politics today. He manages to combine wit with keen observation to devastating effect. He is truly in the Churchillian mould as was pointed out when he made his famous debute speech in the 70's.
  
  Here is a small excerpt from his speech today that really had people laughing and cheering...
  
  """"For it turned out within hours that the Prime Minister who had calculated on an early election before he was found out had been rumbled already; that the leader who had prepared for the battle did not have the bottle to begin it; and it has since turned out that he is the same leader who agrees a European Treaty but can’t decide whether to attend the ceremony, calls a minister incompetent but couldn’t decide whether to sack him, calls a review of round the clock drinking but then can’t decide to go ahead and put a stop to it as he should; this is the Prime Ditherer of the nation. He reminds me of the American state Governor who once said ‘I’m not indecisive. Or am I?’
  
  Perhaps this is no surprise, but for me the truly astounding fact we have discovered in recent months is that a Cabinet without John Prescott and Margaret Beckett is less competent than the Cabinet when they were in it."""""
  
  In that short passage he really sums up Gordon Brown's period of Premiership.
  
  The task now though for the Conservative leadership is to unveil a whole range of policies that will appeal and galvanize the voting public. This superb rhetoric of William is not enough alone, we must have the right policies.
  
  We have already seen how Labour, bereft of their own ideas, are quick to copy ours (or a least watered down half hearted versions), so timing is important. In time to generate the public interest and not too late that they get overlooked in the frantic run up to an election.
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  barryw
  generate interest you better stop posting then
  woops sorry howard/paulb leave it to you
• Guest 660 wrote:
  It seems Barry as if Keith is right according to a leaked internal memo,admits that the Tory Party has little appeal....to families.
  Fresh from his set up Breakfast in his clean white shirt with a mic on it we saw David Cameron having a cosy family breakfast with his family,with a combined wealth of £30 million it must be nice to have breakfast,what a complete set up.
  No doubt they normally get one of the Nannies to feed the kids,probably on minimum wages unless of course Barry gets his way then it will be less than min wages.
  The leaked memo said that Cameron was using his children as a suspected party political use,while Gordon Brown never uses cheap tactics by using his family,in fact the report says that having kids kills your selfish gene and voters know the Tories are the me-me-me party.
  Then we get the new slogan 'Change you can trust',sounds like something i heard a little while ago let me think.....oh yes Democratic presidential candidate...Barack Obama's 'Change we can believe in',the leaked memo was from the ConservativeHome website.
  Wonder what the CBI think of his plan to let new Parents sort of swop thier leave when a child is born they moan now about small businesses not being able to cope when a new parent has time off,I heard him say if the Mother is having a difficult time say after a month or two then the mother can for-go some of her Maternity leave so the Father can take over,yeh I can see my boss saying thats no problem have as much time off as you like permantly,so what does the mother do while the father is off no doubt go back to work,then when he finds it difficult they swop again,in an ideal world,but few employers would let that happen,they would probably not employ any people who were in the child bearing age.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah now chaps chaps! lets not get fractious...as its all just supposed to be a bit of entertaining debate at the end of the day.
  
  I know there is plenty of passion and thats great, but dont fall out lads.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  We won't fall out Paul Barry knows he is right and i know i'm right so we both agree,well thats a first
• keith, Dover wrote:
  everyones right
  
  
  but im on the left
  
  
  and the people will decide who they think is right(or left)
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  just read through all the "political" posts!!
  
  one thing struck me, barry made the point about mr hague being a brillliant orator.
  
  i said this years ago when the blue people were sticking the knife into him.
  
  is that enough though.
  
  we are not in a war situation (other than the ones we just like to join in with).
  
  another churchill is not required.
  
  i much prefer the thinker, like our gordon, even ian d-s.
  serious people rather than public relations types.
  
  i think that hague would make a good foreign secretary, in the mould of robin cook.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Its as Iv said before, words are great, but its action you need.
  
  
  Willy was a great leader thst the conservatives got rid of, but its great he has bounced back, just hope he makes better speeches than the one Barryw quotes, as my 5 year old cousin could have done better than that.
  
  Willy is a good leader and good speaker, and im sure will be around for some time, and a threat to D.C.!
  But the same old tories is the problem wee willy has, that will take a bit longer to shake off(if ever)
• bern, dover wrote:
  Ian Duncan Smith was under-rated - he was the only one to keep his head when there was a "flour" attack in the commons. All the others were doing the headless chicken thing, and he was calmly urging people to stay put in case it was a chemical attack and they may be contaminated - the others were all charging for the doors in self-protection mode and to Hell with the public. What we need is a bit of calm and sense at the top.....and I am not a Tory!!
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  As an ordinary bloke that socialises with other ordinary blokes I feel almost unworthy to try and contribute to the political comment that has been raised about the budget. However, quite frankly I think The Conservatives would have done much the same. I can't remember a government that hasn't raised the price of cigarettes, petrol and booze all the things us ordinary blokes like.
  Barry Williams seems to be under the impression that life will be great under Cameron and the Conservatives. I don't think Cameron has the foggiest idea what makes the average bloke tick. I don't think Blair did either when he took us into a war which nobody wanted. And Barry didn.t anybody tell you that using adjectives (asterisked out) to get your point across loses you the argument straight off.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i know what you are saying dave, it is a long time since we have a bloke or blokess in charge that we can identify with.
  
  gordon comes across as a decent bloke but very presbyterian, dc is an old etonian, blair loved mixing with royalty like cliff richard.
  
  i think that neil kinnock was the nearest to being ordinary.
  now he lives off of the gravy train in brussels, like his good lady.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I totally agree Howard there is nobody that the average bloke can equate with. All we have is a privileged few squabbling between each other in an endeavour to score cheap points. Little wonder that people have to a large extent no interest in politics, they tar them all with the same brush.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Dave
  The very point I have been trying to make.
  The Wednesday prime minister question time is a bad advert for politics.
  It gives the Impression that all these so called adults do is squabble with each other.
  
  DC upon his election as leader said its all outdated and needs changing, he then, in his first speech got involved in the ho ha usual drab stuff.
  
  I know peopl locally and Nationally from all political parties work well together.
  
  I don't agree with it, but Blair had a vision of only having one party, which I believe had he got his way, and longer in office he was heading towards.
  
  Your right Dave about about budget and now it appears DC balloon has burst and tories in opinion polls now starting to slide, he's had his honeymoon period.
  
  
  As Iv said before Iv visited schools(and still do)and lots of yongsters are into everyday life and politics, If only they were grasped.
  
  
  It can be a healthy future,
  Labour will continue to provide
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef I hope you are able to see my editorial piece at the top of the page...The Tories are not sliding in Opinion Polls. Check that out!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have just had the biggest laugh ever reading Keith's last post.
  
  Clear evidence of the dreamworld he is living, so in far from reality.
  
  On the very day that the Conservatives have been given a poll lead of 16% in the Sunday Times and another in the News of The World with 9%. Labour showing a 25 year poll low, the worse showing since Michael Foot, and he says the Tory poll lead is slipping away or words to that effect...
  
  I really dont need to say anything more about what he just said, just about the same (usual) standard.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  paulb
  well is times best paper to look at it?
  yesterday on TV DM was questioned by Andrew marr? and he clearly said the opinion polls were changing(so he couldnt have said it unless he had proof) tories were going down labour was static in polls.
  
  only saying what was said on national TV
  
  if there wrong well ok.
  
  
  On the wider note.
  labour will win again as alternative peopl can bring themselves to
  no laughing matter, and not healthy for democracy.
  we can ignore this if we want, but Gordon will be there
  after next election as PM people will cry on here that public didnt know what they were doing.
  one politician indicated it recently at local elections.
  remember the words?
  people would vote for a monky in labour wards
  
  roll on the election
  maybe the political bit but liven up then
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. When was the programme you watched recorded? and dont forget that Andrew Marr is a well known Labour supporter.
  
  Three polls were conducted after the budget and they all make bad reading for your party.
  
  The Telegraph did not have any headline voting figures as it was questioning about attitudes to the budget.
  
  The other two polls mentioned both showed significant swings to the Conservatives. More polls will follow and I suspect the real Conservative lead will be somewhere between the two polls mentioned.
  
  I was out all day Sunday and only read the Sunday Times and did not see any tv news. I do, however, make sure that I am kept up to date with developments, such as this in the wider world. It is easy to do.
  
  Just taking a snippet from what a Labour supporting interviewer said in an interview does not give a good feel of what is going on. Things move fast these days!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  B.O.B
  boring old barry
  
  Believe I keep up, talking to people every day
  and I know you don't want to see it(like previous 3 general elections)
  labour will be returned again.
  but this is boring for the every day person
  roll on the general election to put him out of his misery(or make it worse)
  
  as iv said before we will never agree.
  thats politics.
  wouldnt it be boring if we were all the same
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah now Keef the BOB bit is a wee bit insulting. lets keep it okay.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I to believe that the Conservatives will be returned at the next general election but purely because Labour appears stale and Brown is up against a young vibrant man who seems to ooze confidence.
  I think it will be a sad day for Britain should he be elected because it appears to be a return to the so-called upper classes ruling the country. Cameron is adescendant of William 1V has always been used to considerable wealth married an extremely wealthy woman and has amassed a personal fortune of £30 million, hardly a man of the people.
  What are his parties policies, he likes the green thing but that is hardly contentious what else has he got to offer that is going to improve our lot.
  I think politicians today are like all old publicans all the characters have gone and they rely upon pr to get their points across
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dave
  there are not many politicians i would go out of my way to hear speak.
  
  oratory is not valued so much these days, they do not go on the hustings and have to calm a rowdy audience.
  i used to enjoy listening to tony benn in his heyday,ken livingstone routing all who were out in front of him, kenneth clarke could hold his own in an argument.
  
  the only political programme we have on the box now is late at night hosted by that bloke with the shredded wheat on his head, and we have
  to listen to a couple of bores like michael portillo and diana abbott.
  both of them have made so mnay stupid statements in the past that they are in the political wilderness.
  
  mind you, i am forgetting another reject that is actually interesting, was doing well until mrs t found out that he was good with colours.
  mathew parriss!!
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  That young, vibrant man who oozes confidence (Cameron) does so because he is Establishment, will never have to worry about a mortgage, school fees, food on the table or his own self esteem. It is easy to ooze confidence in the Good Times, and the Good Times are a feature of people with money or who have families with money and power. Real people, with real issues, real experiences and real charisma are hard to find.
• David, Whitfield wrote:
  My point entirely Howard, people used to listen to them even though they might not have agreed with all their views. Listen to some of them now and you fall asleep within five minutes but perhaps that's the idea.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think maybe bern has hit the nail on the head.
  
  with that background he has so much self confidence.
  he was the same when we were both up at eton.
  
  i loved his bit this week about his family benefiting from the "sure start" scheme.
  
  i bet he puts a string vest on, and stares at the racing on the telly when they come round.
  
  the man is truly authentic.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sad to see class warfare rearing its ugly head on here.
  
  Seems a bit pathetic and desperate to damn someone because he is a 'toff'.
  
  How 1970's that is, but seeing the Labour government is taking the economy back to the disaster of the 1970's, it fits.
  
  Labour is getting desperate and no doubt there will be a lot more of this type of superficial character attacks as the election nears. It wont work, I remember the character assasination of Mrs T in the run up to 1979 election.
  
  I see another poll is out tomorrow (Tuesday), an ICM in the Guardian.
  
  It shows Conservatives on 42% and Labour at 29% quite close to the Sunday Times figures and significantly better than the News of the World poll over the weekend.
  
  It is always the economy that determines an election. Labour had a stroke of luck with the 'golden legacy' inherited from Ken Clarke, then the benign world economic climate for 10 years. So the day of reconing has been delayed longer than usual, but it is coming at the next election after which it will be the job of the Conservatives as usual to get the economy out of Labours mess.
  
  Labour Governments always end in economic tears.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry I have no particular political preferences, I just can't see how aman who has never had to 'rough it' knows how the other half really lives. He has no less than14 old Etonians on his front bench, do they make him feel more secure? After all he has been criticised by some of his own party. Apart from the green thing I ask again what is he going to do to improve the average persons life.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  having looked at their wages and expenses, particularly this week, how can they know what the rest of us have to get by on.?
  
  that bloke conway, when caught bang to rights, excused himself by saying that the wages were too low.
  
  bit like the brussels gravy train.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave - we have seen how any policy announced by the Conservatives that resonates with the public gets stolen in by this Goverment and either watered down (the Inheritance Tax proposals) or overdone (the non-doms issue).
  
  It is right that DC should not fire off all the shot in our locker at once. Timing is important in this, not too soon, not too late - a difficult balance.
  
  As for DC himself - he has certainly been successful in raising the Conservative game, look at the polling and compare with the last 20 years...
  
  I totally reject the suggestion that because of his background he cannot understand 'ordinary' people and their difficulties.
• bern, dover wrote:
  To be frank, it's not about class but about experiences, and although class can impact on the experiences to which we are exposed it is not the only factor. Imagination also plays a part, along with a demonstrable willingness to participate in entire communities rather than restricted huddles (often based around class or ethnicity) and a talent for listening properly. A real politician has a grounding in all the above. I see no evidence that Cameron has that. So it's not his Etonian background, but the other limitations that reduce his appeal for me.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BERN
  Nuff said
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bern
  having studied your post, you are also known as frank.
  
  is there something that you would like to get off of your chest?
  
  feel free, we are a very understanding bunch here.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Howard, I can also be earnest..............
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Bern
  sometimes you can be michael(taking the) joke
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Along with most households, or so I imagine,I have had the latest leaflet delivered through my letterbox from Conservative Candidate for Dover and Deal Charlie Elphicke..see editorial headline comments above.
  
  Charlie hits us with three worrying headlines...
  Law and Order in Meltdown
  Local Healthcare in Crises
  Local Wages are falling
  
  The law and order issue is perhaps the most worrying. Charlie quotes a whole series of frightening national crime figures and indeed we should be all concerned about these, but nothing about statistics here in Dover . At recent meetings we were led to believe by the Police and other local Community Safety bods, that all was fairly well locally and that Dover was a safe place to live and bring up kids. So maybe quoting that gun crime has doubled further afield bears little relation to our local concerns. Our concerns are more simple..we worry about unruly ASBO type behaviour.
  
  Of course from a political point of view I guess it is always important to point these things out but the crime statistics, if indeed there are any to hand, should be locally based.
  
  "Local Healthcare is in a Mess" says the leaflet
  "Local Wages are down £1,000 in 5 years"
  
  It is true that the local job situation is fairly dire. If anyone could bring real solid and substantial jobs to this struggling community they would be politically canonised.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  You can do anything with stats,with the same set of figs you could say the situation is improving,or its the end of the world.Working in the Town Centre and working around the clock there will always be problems but no worse or better than 10-20 years ago,Youngsters have always had an attraction to booze,and when they have some they get stupid/loud.Crime figs are probably up because more people report these things more,eg there are twice as many cars on the road than 20 years ago,twice as many cars,twice as many break in on cars.
  But I have always felt safe in our Town,and any act of crime is not on but in the real world these things happen,but with the Community Wardens and the PCSO like our Keef,we are closer to the level to stop petty crime and this is where the majority of crime is.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I'd quite like to know, come the next election, if Mr Elphicke does not succeed Gwyn, if he will stay 'around' ...although I'm not sure of his whereabouts within the locality is anyway. I know gwyn is not a Dovorian and I would never say that this is a prerequisite, but I do feel Mr Prosser has a strong care for the area and it's people. Feeling this is essential to representation.
  
  I'm not suggesting Mr Elphicke will jump ship if faced with failure (St. Albans) but think that this could happen, in which case it would show a level of contempt, exposing pure self-interest, or selfishness if you like. This is not a trait I feel is conducive with representation of a group of people or town.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  DT
  Like David shaw you mean?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith, I have corrected you on David Shaw about his retained links to Dover and what his charity has done for schools but you clearly ignore facts that do not accord with your prejudices.
  
  Charlie is local - lives in Sandwich and has done so since before his selection. He is no carpet bagger. Your question DT is theoretical anyway and events only can prove one way or the other.
  
  As for our Welsh friend, the current MP. His commitment is debatable but his lack of results in 11 years is palpable. Results are what count.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  of course results count.
  
  general election results are in the mix.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Are you saying then Howard that a result in the ballot box is more important than a result in, say, saving the local hospital or achieving some positive results for the area represented?
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Shouldn't we really give opinions on what Charlie has said rather than concentrating on the old tired political argument of whose done this and whose done that. He's young, very ambitious and might just be somebody that Dover needs.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  actually barry, i just thought i would do a keith.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Funny that Barry because when I was chatting to Charlie the other day,he told me that because he thought there was an election coming,he had to buy a house quickly in DEAL! mind you he was catching the last train to London,when I asked him about his Sandwich connections (my neck of the woods) he said his wife was from Ramsgate.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  john
  
  chatting to charlie!!!
  
  
  please tell me that you have not done a ken.
  
  ok, looking on the plus side, you will become an independent conservative before returning to the fold.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  There is no doubt Charlie is a nice fellow, having met him a couple of times usually only very briefly.
  Think he will run Gwyn close,
  But people don't know our Charlie, and because of this I think its likely people feel safer as they are, and Gwyn will be there again winning the seat for the area
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Charlie's wife is indeed from Ramsgate and their home is Sandwich. He works in London (at least his office is there) and he performs a number of Conservative duties that also take him to London.
  
  If memory serves me right, he lives in the same street as Peter Rees... or very close by.
  
  Keith is hopeful but he is ignoring the sea change that is taking place in British politics. The economic problems accerbated by Gordon Brown's spendthrift policies, backed by a feeling of a time for change, will see and end to this Government. In 1997 and 1979 there was a similar mood. There always comes a 'tipping point' in politics, I thought the Autumn events was that point but perhaps it was the budget instead as the mood certainly has got even worse for Brown over the last week.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Baz;
  I'm more than hopeful, Much as Charlie is probably a nice chappie, and his wife nearly local, and Charlie boy not being known, working in London, but living in Sandwich.
  I, liked many others cant afford the change, so i'm more than hopeful,
  I know the labour parfty locally/nationally (and i'm sure the lib dems)will fight there cornrs and leave nothing to chance, and i'm sure the conservatives the same.
  
  It's going to be a long drawn out wait to see who's right
  (in my case left!)
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Gwyn lives in River, his wife is charming and gives much back to the community in her work, he has tangible links to the local issues through his own work and his wifes. What is the level of competition here?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I note that despite local concerns and a campaign to save some of our local post offices, Gwyn Prosser was NOT among the 19 Labour rebels who voted against the Government and for a Conservative motion in the House to save them.
  
  If a 'local' (how do you define that?) MP was the main criteria for election one then our Welsh friend certainly would not qualify on that score.
  
  Incidentally we have been effectively banned from assessing a candidate in selection in part based on his/her spouse. Fortunately Charlie's wife is would pass muster anyway.
  
  A far more important 'qualification' for Dover would be Charlie's expertise in re-generation. He was involved in the South Bank project and that is important and relevant experience for Dover. He is far more able, knowedgable and 'skilled' than our present MP.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I'm sure as iv said Charlie has some qualities, and I would never get into other members of family as its a dangerous road to get into.
  
  Not sure what barry is on about with regard to selection procedure?
  
  Gwyn is the man as you would expect me to say
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Further to my last post. If just 10 more Labour MPs rebelled the Government would have lost the vote to close post offices. No doubt GP made resassuring noises to local campaigners but when it came to the crunch he placed Party loyalty ahead of them.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Howard I chat to everyone,no matter what thier politics are,Keith is right Charlie seems a nice chap,and he is young and energetic,I was that once when i stood in Sandwich for the Labour Party in 1979,but being Young and energetic isn't enough,Vic is energetic and he didn't get reelected.Sandwich of course is now in Thanet South Barry,so perhaps you should move Charlie to Deal to get him in the area,he did tell me he lived in Deal,but it was late and either he or I could have made a mistake.As I have said previously i canvassed Peter Rees.
  Howard Born Bred and Die,Labour it is in my Blood,no Ken/Vic in me,I am not driven by politics,but it has always been part of my life,my principles are and always have been Socialist,don't always agrre with everything but in general terms there could be no other party.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Of course what I’m suggesting is theoretical, but then projections based on the statistics here are also theoretical. It’s all well and good The Times coming out with a general projection but it’s relatively meaningless within our locality. Liars, damn liars and statisticians. These figures, in a national paper quite rightly talk about the nation, as do Mr Elphickes comments, but they do not directly address the identity of our area and demographic. To take the empiricist view, a ‘local’ representative should understand and be a part of this identity, rather than just make general assumptions. If all issues could be addressed with a ‘one shoe fits all’ approach it would eradicate the need for local representation. Exhausting this idea, we may as well hand all decisions to central government and ultimately to Brussels, does that fits well with Tory ideals?
  
  The post office debate amuses me, as the reason this government are closing them is because they are not making profit. It’s a public service; the police also fail to make a profit! I seem to remember other nationalised services having to be privatised in the 1980s because they had to be subsidised (admittedly because of inefficient management). This isn’t a Labour invention; they are continuing the work because they are politically similar to the Tories. Personally I don’t mind paying more taxes as long as the money is well spent; we only have to look to some Scandinavian countries to see the benefits of high taxation. If we still had control of services that should be public, we wouldn’t have to worry about freezing pensioners because we would be able to control the service.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  DT - You are right about loss making but that is not where the Conservatives are coming from.
  
  To explain it is best put by Charles Hendry MP, Shadow Minister for Postal Affairs. Extracts from an article he put on conservativehome.com.
  
  """"""""""Post offices are like any other business. They have to move with the times, if they are to survive........
  
  ........ is not about whether they need to change, but how they should change. As more and more people work online, traditional areas of business have declined. Government and other organisations are right to find the most efficient way of delivering their services.
  
  So, if our post offices are to survive, the Government needs to have a positive vision for the role they should perform. That is precisely what is missing today.............
  
  ..........There should be no doubt that this is not the Post Office’s closure programme. I have great respect for the work Adam Crozier and his team are doing to try and modernise the Royal Mail, but they are being forced to implement a closure programme imposed on them directly by the Government.
  
  The Government has decided on the overall funding for the post office and determined that 2,500 should close; the Government has determined the flawed ‘access criteria’ which are being used to decide which ones should close; and the Government has forced through a consultation process half the length recommended by its own Cabinet Office.
  
  The right policy, consistently advocated by .... the Conservative team, would be to find, first of all, new ways of bringing additional business to the post office network. Sub-post masters are entrepreneurs. They want to develop new services and they want to survive on business rather than subsidy – but in this topsy-turvy world they are stopped from doing so.
  
  They should be working with carriers other than the Royal Mail, so they can become a hub for all the carrier services that drive endlessly around our communities trying (and usually failing) to deliver packages. They should be developing new financial services, as recommended by the Federation of Sub-Postmasters. They should relentlessly be seeking new opportunities to make post offices the place where we can access government and local government services................
  
  I think that pretty well sums up the Conservative approach. It is based on a far beetter knowleedge of how businesses work and need to change, addressing the key issue of profitability. It is not about subsidising a loss making business, it is about constructive change.
  
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I think that this is exactly what is wrong with the Conservative approach. A Post Office is not like any other business and should not be treated as one. In the same way our armed forces are not a business, our police, our hospitals and our schools are also not. They are services and they second people try to apply a financially driven structure, corners are cut and prices are but on basic human needs and services. We only have to look as far as hospitals to see this in action, with the cleaning of wards being ‘out-sourced’ to private contractors. This was once down to the hospital and matrons, directly accountable and in full control.
  
  This business approach is being injected, by rather backdoor methods, into our schools via the BSF scheme which is dressed up as the rebuilding of our educational institutes for the 21st century but is actually just peddling the idea of PFI schools. Public services, health and education are not businesses. Yes, all these things must evolve, adapt and move with the times that does not mean putting a price on what they offer to society.
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  ...to conclude,
  
  the profit created by things like the post office is immeasurable, as many of the things it provides have no monetary value. They provide infrastructure, and form hubs for community amoungst other things.
  
  I don't think that World War II would have been seen as a particuarly viable commercial business proposition but you can't put a price on liberty. It really isn't just about cash, and we don't all want to be rich.
• Beth, St Rads wrote:
  Nice picture above sadly i dont trust mr Elphicke one bit. I will be backing Mr Prosser every step next election.
• Beth , St Rads wrote:
  Any ideas for a caption on this photo?
  what do you think of this?
  THE WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING ON THE LEFT. THE LOCAL MP MR PROSSER ON THE RIGHT.
• Beth , St Rads wrote:
  No leaflet from the wolf delivered in St Rads wonder why? .
• bern, dover wrote:
  DT - absolutely!! Some things are priceless. It begs the question "what is the government for?" - the last few have run Britain as if they are the Board of a Private Limited Company, but it isn't, and the aims and objectives have to be different and incorporate moral and ethical factors. I want more from my Government than financial deals, cash or business plans.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  How about'''''Now I know what its like to feel an MP.sorry Charlie you may be young and energetic but it looks like you don't fool anyone with the I am a local Yokel,you have been exported from London,and until you got the Vacancy that no one wanted,you probably had only ever passed thru Dover,still with rising property prices,you should make a profit on your house when you sell it after the next election.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Mandi,I see your comments on Charlie,leaflet,on the next page is your friend Sue,I would have been impressed if you were shaking her hand
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i got that leaflet today.
  
  it really was the cult of personality, all about our charlie, very little about
  his party.
  loved that bit about "the news of the screws" describing him as a leading economist.
  
  it seems that he thinks us plebs would be impressed by that.
  
  after all, we read that paper , don't we?
• Guest 660 wrote:
  I do Howard,they had me down as an expert on Travel all things Train,and no doubt as I sometimes even get my shift to balance,a financial expert.(not in Barry's League though) he has got letters after his name,but i do the budget in doors,a consumer expert as i do the shopping,a History expert as I am a member of the History Society,and now a computer expert,we are talking Ne** of the Wo***,they can't be wrong all of the time can they?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  you are right john.
  
  you are a local icon, flogging those dodgy train tickets.
  
  forgive me for being cynical.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  the tickets are dodgy Howard,can't speak for my work mates
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  I only got to see the leaflet on Thursday evening while seeing friends in Deal. I didn't even know I would be quoted on the front there, but I am not complaining. I hope the royalties are good lolol
  
  As I have said before. I don't do politics, don't understand it, not sure I want to when I see all the grief, but this I do know, and I am going to tell you all now.
  
  When the carnival Dilema hit the press. Guess who was one of the first to offer me help??
  
  Not quite the first. That spot is reserved for John Goodwin, but Charlie has been working behind the scenes to see if he could negotiate a solution. Not because I asked him to, but off his own back. He didn't jump up and down shouting "look at what I am doing"
  That spoke volumes to me. On the other hand I had to e-mail Gwyn to get any response.
  
  John ya little terror you!!! lolol
  Can't ever see me and sue shaking hands John lolol
• Guest 649 wrote:
  I will be standing again next time with my own funding and I am looking forward to it.
  
  VIC mATCHAM
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Mandi that is wonderful and I totally agree with you. I haven't met Charlie but in that one act of non ego boosting help he's given DCAL he's won my support. If only more councillors worked for the good of Dover and not just to boost their own egos. I don't do politics either because like you I don't understand them, but also like you I judge people on what they do. Well done Charlie.
  Before any of you start accusing me of running down our councillors - I'm not. I can only think of one who loves himself more than Dover!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  who will you be standing for this time vic?
  
  incidentally, did not see you this morning at the procession.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  No I was not there today I have been to my own church today have just got back ,was there last night to and will be there Saturday night as well and again at the Castle at 6.00am on Sunday and then back to my own Church for the last one over Easter.,SO I and mywife went out for dinner over at Deal. I will be standing on my own again just like the last time.
  
  I remain yours faithfully Viuc Matcham
• Guest 643 wrote:
  As keith said last time around, Mr Matcham has no chance of getting in so why not save his money - or he could donate it to the mill, heaven knows they need it.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  My wife and myself do spend time out at the Mill and my wife has just made some cakes for them to sale for there own funding we do try to help out when we can.We will look again at the G/E when it comes I only work part-time now so funding might be a problem for me +my age but wait and see.
  
  I remain yours faithfully Vic Matcham
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  D.C. pedalling the wrong way upa one way street was hilarious, especially with Special Branch or whoever pedalling furiously behind him. Never did think he had much sense of direction, the pictures prove it.
  In the words of Delboy "what a plonker".
  
  By the way does he get a police caution or an £80.00 fine like the rest of us would.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dave
  i thought he deserved some plaudits, passed his cycling proficiency test.
  
  apologies to the handful of cyclists that obey the rules.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  in the news today, the big issue appears to be about embryo testing.
  
  a lot of people have expressed impassioned views on this subject.
  is there a poster than explain both sides of the argument on here, as it has gone right over my head.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes Howard its a very confusing situation and I dont begin to understand it fully myself..but as you know the Roman Catholic Church are concerned over this and as a consequence so are Catholic MPs, and indeed up as far as government ministers, there are at least 3 government ministers who also happen to be Catholic.
  
  I might be able to add something from the Catholic perspective.
  
  As you probably are aware the Catholic Church is against anything that they deem as non natural. For example they are against birth control of any kind and believe in sex, birth, life and so on with no added intereference of any kind. All things natural in other words.
  
  This new Embryo program is all about non natural process. ( I wont use the term un-natural) To combine animal and human genes in an effort to create life would not therefore be something that would sit comfortably with Catholics and would actual be significantly against what they believe.
  
  So as the sanctity of religion nowadays is almost always paramount, as is the case with Muslims, these problems have to be addressed.
  
  The Catholic Church is now the largest church body in the UK so their concerns have to be listened to. We wouldnt dream of trying to force Muslims into voting against their religious beliefs nor should we with Catholics. Therefore it is wrong for Gordon Browns government to force Catholic Mps/Ministers into voting a certain way that leaves them at odds with their religious beliefs.
• bern, dover wrote:
  True PaulB - it is outrageous that GB is even thinking of forcing a vote against conscience. And it's not solely Catholics who find the idea of this experimentation abhorrent - many non-religious people are repulsed by it too. The concept of creating mixed animal and human beings for experimentation on is foul, and the arguement that they are "only" embyos won't wash - where does it end? I have no trust in governments honesty or reliability so cannot possibly trust them to manage this.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Usually all such matters as this embyo legislation were treated in the Commons as matter of concience and allowed a free 'unwhipped' vote. Indeed the Conservatives and LibDems are still doing so with this Bill. It is only Labour who are insisting, for some strange reason, to apply a Whip.
  
  I suspect they will back down, but it says a lot about Brown's control freak nature and poor judgement, that he has got into this hole.
• bern, dover wrote:
  It's not just Labour who are influenced by outside factors and interests! All parties have at some point voted in a managed way because of donors, or business interests, or some influential person lobbying - questions are raised all the time in the commons by people "bought" in one way or another...........
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  thanks for the clarification paul.
  
  this is
  
  clearly not a political issue, so the PM has no right to tell people how to vote.
  
  however, as bern has pointed out, governments have a way of getting their own way.
  future front bench appointments will no doubt be affected by how people vote on this issue.
  
  i sympathise strongly with the religious viewpoint, but the scientific people will pour so much scorn on their arguments, that i think this will go ahead.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The point is that usually such matters as the one in question are not a party political consideration, but one of concience.
  
  It is very easy to be excessively cynicaly these days, unfortunately. This is the fault of politicians that such attitudes are so embedded. A sad reflection of the times and to me it demonstrates the need for change both in the system and the behaviour of the elected and above all who is elected.
• Phil Eyden, Dover wrote:
  Paul, please forgive slight correction/clarification.
  
  Animal and human genes are not being combined here. Genetic information is encoded in DNA as I'm sure you know. The proposition is the complete replacement of animal DNA with human nuclei into an animal cell. In essence all the animal genetic information is removed and completely replaced with human DNA. The animal cell thus becomes the receptacle and growth medium - combination of genes will not happen, indeed, the cells will be 99.9% human. The resultant cell would be used as a testing point for stem cell research, invaluable in combating Parkinson's and many other diseases.
  
  It should also be pointed out that animal cells are only to be used to receive the nuclei as too few human egg cells are being donated for research.
  
  Reading some of the quotes from politicians about the stem-cell research makes for frightening reading as many of them are instinctive and reactionary as they quite simply do not understand the scientific issues involved. Stem cell research could lead to potential cures for genetic diseases yet some of these politicians can't see beyond 'we have no right to create life' or are under the ignorant delusion that scientists are hell-bent on creating some monstrous half-human, half chicken hybrid with horns. It's disturbing that legitimate scientific research that could benefit us all and our families to come could be dealt a crippling view by those who do not understand the implications or have an fantastic and anachronistic view of how the universe functions.
  
  The question one has to ask yourself is that how will one feel if at some time in the future one's grand child is crippled with motor-neurone or Parkinson's Disease. How would one feel then to look back to this day and remember that the lack of treatment available is the fault of a bunch of ignorant politicians voting in an area they simply do not understand or had no wish to.
  
  (Of course as you may have noticed I have Davros as my avatar so I could hardly speak against generic experimentation...) :)
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Very well put Phil, excellent post.
  
  I think you should have sent that to the Houses of Parliament for the MPs to read, I'm sure most of them thought that human and animal genes were to be mixed together.
  
  I was surprised a couple of years or so ago, when MPs had the opportunity to vote on the donor issue (whether to opt in, or out of being a donor) and the majority of them voted for the status quo - opt in, so more people die unnecessarily, than opt out where it is taken as read(almost) that unless you say so, you wish your organs and anything else that could save or enhance a life, to be taken out and used for someone who will benefit from them.
  
  This is where the real sanctity of life is - or should be; enhancing someone's life who has been living with a chronic disease, so they can live life to the full and not have to live in a debilitating way, or that they can live longer - both via a transplant.
  
  Well done again Phil.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• bern, dover wrote:
  Not sure what makes you an expert on the sanctity of life.....nor me. What I do know is that my body is mine and no-one else should assume they have control of it even after my death. And no-one should assume that just because scientisits are able to describe a process blandly that it is bland or harmless.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Thank you for your explanation Phil, I'm afraid I was like one of those MPs in that I thought the same as they did. From what you tell us then obviously the truth sets a completely different picture. My late father had Parkinsons and a very dear Aunt died from motor neurone disease so anything that gives a glimmer of hope of a cure for these is dear to my heart.
  As you so rightly say, in years to come will we look back and say "if only.............".
  Thank you Phil.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that the important thing here is that our elected representatives are being given the opportunity to study the issue and vote acccording to their conscience.
  we have a fair mix of people of different faiths in the commons together with some that have no religious beliefs.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I agree it is good that all MPs are being given the chance to vote according to their own wishes.
  
  The trouble is that the Catholic Church is not letting them do that, but telling them to vote as per the Catholic Church, which is not the same.
  
  I do hope that the Catholic Church have read properly and digested properly, what it is all about and what is at stake.
  
  Parkinsons Disease, Motor Neurone, Altzimers, Kidney, Liver and Lung failures can all be cured through continuance of this quite amazing medical science.
  
  Surely life and the quality of life is of prime importance ?
  
  I guess it is every one's choice about what happens to them after they die, but is it not a waste of such a valuable thing as a life, to just burn it at a cremation or stick it in the ground for it to rot and the worms and maggots to chew on ?
  
  Why did God give man the ability to do these life-saving procedures, if it wasn't to be used ?
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i am not a religious person, the vast majority of the world is.
  
  some of the great scholars have been avid readers of the koran, bible, torah and other tomes.
  
  i do get out of my pram when the scientific types scoff at these people
  and refer to superstitions when they want advance their research.
  
  every time that the lab people want permission to do something new they trot out the disease curing line.
  
  we had it with vivisection, would cure cancer, that was in the sixties.
• Phil Eyden, Dover wrote:
  Thank you Jacqui and Roger!
  
  Howard,
  
  Just how many drugs have you taken that have been created via scientific research in your life? Dozens I bet. Are you really trying to imply that scientific research has no validity? So cancer has not yet been cured, should research be abandoned, is that what you proposing?
  
  The problem with the Catholic Church in particular in this matter is that they have scored a huge own-goal by promoting the 'evil scientists creating a human-animal hybrid' line. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what the research is attempting to achieve and is purely a soundbyte to appeal to the media and the more ignorant of the masses who will lap up whatever the minister in front of them is espousing.
  
  From my experience, generally critical faculties in relation to scientific research and mechanisms guiding natural processes are worrying lacking to many of those of blind faith. Politicians are sadly not exempt - how many of them will vote against based purely on their own faith as opposed to even attempting to understand what good will come of the research?
  
  Cardinal O'Brien has completely (deliberately?) missed the point that the research is there to enhance people's lives by curing ills, not an attempt to supplant his perceived creator by a bunker full of test-tube wielding amoral Josef Mengele types.
  
  The DNA proposed is non-embryonic in nature. It is equivalent to a human skin or hair cell transplanted into a cow egg with all the cow DNA already extracted. Given that the proposition is that such developed cells are destroyed at the 14 day stage anyway if they even live that far, I fail to see what the objection is.
  
  A great deal of good may come of this, and I find it disturbing that a belief in a set of morals based on an anachronistic religious system could set us back.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  This is obviously a heavier weightier section so a well done to one and all for keeping it going in fine style as all the postings are very very interesting indeed.
  
  I must, as is the current political trend, state that I am somewhat compromised in this topic being a Catholic - no longer a practising one its true, but nevertheless the doctrine is embedded in the genes and bones.
  
  I think both Roger and Phil are both overstating and oversimplifying the Catholic position. Catholics boast some of the finest brains in the country so I think its safe to say that they are only too well aware of the advancement scientific research brings. The problem is not with the advancement, it is with the method of advancement. Or how we get to where we want to be.
  
  What's different about this research and why its caused such a hoo haw, as I understand it anyway, is that no matter how its dressed up by the various scientists, what we are doing here is combining animal and human cells for the first time in order to create life or living tissue. This is where the problem lies with Catholics.
  
  I of course Im not a scientist in any way shape or form but have been following it loosely courtesy of the heavenly BBC. But I can see this is where the problem lies.
  
  Sure, if research was successful it may well help the greater good, but perhaps there is another way of reaching this greater good. The fact of the matter is anyway, that people should not be asked to vote for something they dont believe to be right. It is an equally valuable factor in modern life is it not, that some sections of the community still believe in a right and wrong beyond the convenient.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I see that the hapless Gordon Brown got lost at the banquet last night. Naturally for him he blames it of the staff. No-one else got lost of course, only him....
  
  The President of France, when told the PM was lost was heard to say 'thats Gordon'.
  
  Can't get anything right, a real disaster area is Gordon. Would be laughable if he didnt have his finger on the nuclear trigger..... He makes George Bush look a highly competent genius!!!
  
• Guest 641 wrote:
  What's this I hear, the French President teatotal! Isn't that what the Gaulist's would term Blasphemy! Hopefully Carla can introduce the Premier to the attractions of the grape.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - I thought Phil had stated the case quite eloquently that this research is about NOT mixing animal and human cells, but about using human cells in animal eggs, so there is no mixing of cells at all.
  
  There will be no hybrid mixing, just human cell research: stem-cell research.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that the president has other weaknesses, not got much time left for drinking.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I think it rich commenting about Gordon Brown when David Cameron is probably still pedalling the wrong way up one way streets, presumably trying to find the House of Commons. Still if he is anything like the Conservative leaders since Macmillan they all seem to have got lost in some way.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  phil
  you have proved my point.
  
  by using the word "anachronistic" or something like that, you have put down the majority of the human race that have religious beliefs.
  incidentally, i do not use drugs any more, just herbal remedies.
  
  the medications never state whether they have been used as animal tortures.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I don't know whether you are playing devil's advocate here or not Howard, but to describe scientific research - the advancement of medical science as "animal tortures" is a bit over the top.
  
  I'd have thought you could use more eloquent ways to describe something you don't agree with, not this sort emotive nonsense.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Picked this bit up from Reuters, a quote from a top analyst...
  
  """"""""""""""
  "In electoral terms, David Cameron is now far outperforming everyone of his four post-Thatcher predecessors," Essex University Professor of Government Anthony King wrote in the Telegraph.
  
  "Labour is being hit by a double whammy -- the voters' belief that the government can no longer govern effectively, and the serious economic downturn that few voters believe the Brown government can deal with," he added.
  """""""""""""""""""""
  
  Labour have left this country ill prepared for the downturn, having squandered not only Ken Clarke's 'golden legacy' but also all the fruits of economic growth generated by the benign world conditions over the last 15 years, plus all the masses of extra tax taken from us, then even that is not enough, they have still gone on to borrow like crazy.... a madness that the country has now woken up to.
  
  Gordon Brown's reputation of a prudent Chancellor is exposed as a total sham. Some of us have been pointing out the hole into which we have been led for years but only now, when it is so late in the day is the message getting through.
  
  Pity so much damage has been done to get here.
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Howard, do I detect a hint of deliberate misinterpretation here?
  
  If you read my post properly you will note that I said "an anachronistic religious system", this was specifically in relation to the Catholic Church which I believe has got it seriously wrong in this case. I was not referring to anyone with a religious belief, on the contrary religion brings great comfort to many people and has an immense social and community value (including Catholicism). Many religions are progressive, forward thinking and willing to embrace change, but I would hardly place the Catholic Church at the top of that particular list. Notably leaders of the UK Jewish community has come out in full support of the bill and been highly critical of the Catholic stance.
  
  People should be able to determine divinity in their own terms as opposed to being told what to say and think by dictats eminating from Rome; still control and protection of its assets is what the Church has always been about.
  
  As Paul points out the Catholic Church does indeed have some exceptionally intelligent men amongst it's ranks, including many notable scientists, so it is disappointing that their exception to the bill is cloaked in very calculated gross mis-representation and medieval rhetoric. Still, in a country dominated by tabloids, celebrity obsessions, dole-scrounging and ASBOs, it's hardly surprising that their objections are aimed at the lowest common dominator. It's the only way to gain a popular audience.
  
  As far as I understand Catholicism preaches that human life begins at conception, hence their opposition to abortion. However, under this new proposal the eggs which have been injected with human DNA from skin cells are stimulated into dividing via an electrical current. They are not fertilised by sperm, hence no conception takes place. Surely there is no implication that these tiny balls of eggs have a soul? I believe it must threaten the Catholic concept of immaculate conception by demonstrating that human tissue can be made to grow in a test tube.
  
  Good to hear you are now only taking herbal remedies to avoid 'animal torture'. I take it you don't eat meat from a slaughterhouse or eat battery-farmed eggs either?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  if i can take the opportunity to clarify a few points here.
  
  i eat meat from slaughterhouses, that is the way of things.
  it may be wrong, but i do it.
  i only eat free range eggs, but suspect that a lot of them are from sources that are playing a game of semantics.
  
  i have no great problem of animals being killed for food, my cat does it purely for pleasure, that is her way.
  
  i do not use prescription drugs for 2 reasons, torture of animals and also selfishly the side effects listed on the packaging.
  
  i rather like the natural things that grow from the ground like tobacco, hops and barley.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well it looks like the cat is out of the bag on immigration. All along our Labour government have been saying there is no need to cap immigration as immigration on our current fairly huge scale is of major benefit to the economy of the nation. But is it? The House of Lords dont agree. A Committee of our noble friends has studied this issue in depth and they want to see a limit (cap) on the amount of foreign bodies trekking to our shores searching for work....and if I can be emotive for a minute... as they take our houses and take our jobs!
  
  The Conservative Party have been asking for a cap to immigration all along..so were they right to do so. Has David Cameron got it right? They are certainly in harmony with our noble friends in the upper house.
  
  The problem is where do you draw the line. So many of the more menial jobs are filled by immigrants.Who would take those jobs if there was no more immigration?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - all the mass immigration has done is keep wages low. The report also confirms that.
  
  There are many indiginous people without jobs, also identified in the report.
  
  If there are few people wanting these unskilled jobs then the wages on offer will increase to tempt them, this is the way of the market. The minimum wage would be irrelivant and should be.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  governments have always played this trick.
  immigration is great for keeping wages low and keeping the proles under control.
  
  public services can not handle the extra work, meaning that the less well off suffer.
  things seem to have come full circle now, nigel lawson concerned about the working classes.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  It was very interesting today to see Harriet Harman take Prime Ministers Questions. The first Labour woman to do so as Ive pointed out in the editorial above. Rather strangely though the Tories did not allow her opposite number to oppose her...one Therese May... who one might have thought was experienced enough as she has been around longer than Methusalah. It would have been a novelty indeed to see two women having a Political argy bargy at PMQ. But alas it was denied us by the Tories...who always seem reluctant and always have seem reluctant to give Therese May her head! or is it just that the Conservatives only allow ( or prefer) their women to make the cucumber sandwiches at the assorted soiree..!!??
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - Harman was being disingenious.
  
  She is both Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House.
  
  In PMQ's she was deputising for the PM, in other words acting in her position as Deputy PM.
  
  Williams Hague is her Shadow as he is Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party so it was correct that he should handle PMQs.
  
  Theresa May is Shadow Leader of the House and opposes Harman when Harman acts in that role.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  why oh why do you men think that we women cann,t handle our selfs in anythink higher than kitchen sink mode if good old harriet did well at question time one up for us ladies what ever side your on.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bit out of date their jan, mrs t was doing it over 30 years ago.
  
  paul
  can you please clarify what you mean by theresa may given her head?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I think Jan is right in that Mrs Thatcher may have broken the ground thirty years ago or "three decades ago" as William Hague called it today, but I dont think anyone has ever done it since. Certainly Harriet is the first Labour woman to do it, so Thatcher was something of an early blip in the process. We still see women differently in these roles..as even BarryW says himself there on one posting today...
  "Hague went easy on her because she was a woman"
  or words to that effect.
  
  lol!! was wondering if you might spot the "head" remark Howard but I couldnt possibly comment further.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  I notice that Harriet isn't wearing her stab-proof vest, do you think that it is wise?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  just using boys computer whlilst hes at school so not on for long
  
  On comments on Harriet.
  Everyone in my eyes should be treated equally sadly because they are not it became such a big issue on PM's question time.
  
  Harriet won the political debate, not because of what sex she may be but on ability. She outclassed willy on his every move.
  
  I do like our mr hague but at pm's question time he was wasn t up to harriet this time.
  
  Its a shame a debate ever has to be had by women or men on whether or not a woman is up to any job, if like me you treat people equally you wouldnt even be hsaving this debate.
  sometimes women posters dont help there corner by making such a big issue of it all.
  At the end of the day harriet won the debate, not for women but for the labour party and government
• Guest 640 wrote:
  You might well laugh about Harriet and her stab proof vest but for example if I myself had the ghastly Peckham for a constituency I might well wear it too. However I must admit its a great pity that not just an MP but a leading government Minister is reduced to wearing a stab proof vest like this. I mean what is society coming too for gawdsake. Its more a reflection on the grisly inner london society we have created rather than on the Minister. This is no comfortable society of yore where people felt they belonged. Now everyone feels threatened and beleagured like rats in a trap and live accordingly.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  PaulB let us hope that London does not revert to the early 'Peeler' days when to walk the streets of London without a pistol or your trusty swordstick was a daft thing to do and you could never find a 'footpad' when you wanted one, a 'Harriet' ie a stab-proof vest wouldn't save you.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  keef - did you actually watch PMQ's or did you get your view from the Mirror?
  
  The fact is she was simply less dire than was expected from her usual poor standards. No-one expected much out of her based on her normal Commons performances.
  
  She survived but only just. William spared her as a Gent would.
  
  
• Paul Watkins , ??? wrote:
  Barry , I don't she has been designated deputy prime minister by GB. Leader of Commons & deputy leader of the Labour Party is her role ,they don't trust her with the nuclear button if GB is not at home, so they say.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i trust no-one with the nuclear button.
  
  what if someone like our victor finally gets to downing street?
  
  have people thought this through?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i have to bite the bullet here and acknowledge that the best recent post has come from keith.
  
  is there really a divide between men and women?
  i do not think so, seems really 1960s stuff.
  
  just the same with skin colour, who really thinks it is important anymore?
  i will just go along with women scrubbing the floor and black people cutting down sugar cane.
  
• keith, dover wrote:
  howars
  at last
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  An intersting poll in The Telegraph.
  
  Who do you consider to be the greatest post-war Prime Minister:
  Mrs Thatcher - 34%
  Winston Churchill - 15%
  Tony Blair - 11%
  Harold Wilson - 9%
  Clement Attlee - 7%
  Harold MacMillan - 3%
  Then Heath, Major and Callaghan each managed 1% (their families must have been questioned for them to get anything!!!)
  
  Who, at the peak of their powers, would you choose now as Prime Minister if it was possible?
  Mrs Thatcher - 27%
  Tony Blair - 20%
  Tony Benn - 13%
  David Cameron - 8%
  Ken Clarke - 6%
  Gordon Brown - 5%
  Dont Know - 21%
  
  The last question, among just Labour voters:
  Mrs T. got 6%
  David Cameron got 3%
  Ken Clarke got 4%
  Gordon Brown managed just 10%
  So even among Labour voters more prefer Tories as PM to Gordon Brown. How humiliating for him....
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  Come on Barry you don't believe everything you read in the thinking mans Sun do you?
  How many people today remember Churchill, Attlee, Wilson and some of the others mentioned.
  During Thatcher's reign unemployment was at one point 3.6 million,productivity had dropped dramatically and interest rates were in-tolerably high. Coupled with this although she did turn the economy round for a while toward the end of her office it was showing signs of cracks. The end of her was the Poll Tax when 100,000 people demonstrated in Trafalger Square and rioting broke out.
  Rather than Thatcher leaving Labour a healthy economy it was Major but his downfall was the 'back to basics'speech which resulted in the press and media raking up just about every piece of muck they could find about Tory M.Ps.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I merely gave the results of a poll Dave. It speaks for itself.
  
  Mrs T saved this country from being an economic basket case. Remember when we had 29% inflation under Callaghan? Remember when the Unions held the country to ransom?
  
  You mentioned unemployment but we had a massive increase in that under Wilson and Callaghan. In those days they tried to disguise it by subsidising jobs in nationalised industries, for instance paying people to produce cars that didnt work and no-one wanted to buy. The steel industry was producing steel no-one wanted to buy being able to sell it only with massive subsidy making it cheap. The ship building industry was also heavily subsidised producing ships for foreign countries to undermine our Merchant Marine. Despite all that effort unemployment figures still rose as the inflation destroyed jobs in small companies that could not compete profitably with subsidised industries and damaged 'enterprise' as a whole. Strip out the subsidies and you reveal the actual level of unemployment.
  
  For the UK it was like being on drugs. It had to end, it simply could not go on and Mrs T was strong enough to adminster the treatment. Ending these subsidies was like 'cold turkey', it was severe but we owe our prosperity now to the economic reforms Mrs T introduced.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  excellent election broadcast by the labour party tonight.
  
  did anyone else see it, and what did you think?
  
  not you barry!!
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  I was working on the computer H,but it sounded good,but I would say that wouldn't I bet Barry didn't like it though,wouldn't it be a surprise if he said it was excellent and was thinking of joining.No the moon is not Blue/Red tonight
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  john the ideas are brilliant and would delight everybody, but will they come to fruition?
  
  people are getting very cynical.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  It is very interesting to see that Tony Blair is doing so well in those Opinion Polls put up by BarryW. After a loooong reign at the top it is impressive, usually a PM slips out of view for at least a time before reassessment. Mr Blair's reassessment and place in history is not really identified fully or finalised yet, but I expect he will be viewed very positively eventually. In other words history will judge him well.
  
  He was a man who grasped the new media age very well indeed, was a totally gifted communicator, so much so that he has left a host of imitators in his wake, and of course still is the sublime communicator in his current role. You only have to see the difference between himself and the so far hapless Gordon Brown to see what Im talking about.
  
  Of course its not just all about communication but it sure helps. But Mr Blair gave us better hospitals, a more effective police service, and an aspiration for education.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - No surprise that I disagree with what you say about Blair and his legacy. Smoke and mirrors, spin is all that he leaves as a legacy. The only solution Labour have to any problem is to spend money, our money. On any measure of assessing a 'return' on an investment they have failed and if translated into business it would lead to bankrupsy.
  
  As for that broadcast.
  
  More spin hiding the real picture.
  
  Nothing about how they have exacerbated the economic crisis in the UK. Nothing about the increased taxes on the low paid. Nothing about the way businesses are strangled in red tape. Nothing about the destruction of the savings base. Nothing about the idiotic sell off of gold reserves. Nothing about the cancer of political correctness that is destroying our culture. Nothing..... nothing.... nothing.... of any real substance.
  
  Brown looking ever more Frankenstein-like saying they have only just begun, after 11 years in power!!! I dread to think what would happen if this deadbeat bunch of thirdrate failures get back next time.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  An interesting article by Rachel Sylvester in today's Telegraph.
  
  She lists 10 of the problems facing the Government
  
  """""""""""""""""""""""""""
  Disrespect for Brown Last week, the Prime Minister had to endured a "low-level heckle" by his own backbenchers at a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
  
  A range of contentious issues. MPs are open rebellion over the abolition of the 10p tax rate and the proposal to lock up terrorist suspects for 42 days. They are upset about post office closures. They are suspicious of housing plans. they are concerned about welfare reform ideas .
  
  Cross-party unhappiness. Disillusioned Left-wingers who campaigned for Mr Brown to become leader are joining forces with Blairites who say: "I told you so."
  
  Frontbench rebellions Last week, Ivan Lewis, a health minister, warned that Labour was "losing touch" with hard-working families, then Gerry Sutcliffe, the licensing minister, attacked the tax rises on booze.
  
  Cabinet disunity After one recent Cabinet meeting, Jack Straw threatened to punch Ed Balls during a row about who was responsible for youth crime.
  
  Chancellor-PM tensions Darling is already planning his memoirs, as an insurance policy against the Prime Minister.
  
  Worries about drift and dither Ministers who were once in awe of Mr Brown have started complaining about their boss. "It's dither, dither," one says. An aide claims, "It's like a Shakespearean tragedy. Gordon's not up to the job."
  
  Frictions inside Number Ten Mr Brown's advisers at Number 10 are not only fighting like ferrets in a sack, they are also briefing details to the press.
  
  Fear of the Tory poll leads With the Conservatives enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls, Labour MPs are facing up to political mortality for the first time since 1997.
  
  Leadership speculation, Mr Balls is positioning himself, none too subtly as the "real Labour" candidate by waging war on the admissions policies of faith schools, Mr Purnell is trying to occupy the modernising ground by talking tough on welfare reform, David Miliband is making sure he does not end up in a foreign policy backwater, with speeches on the future direction of the centre-Left. It cannot be long before the Blairite street fighters, Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn, and the champion of the Left, Jon Cruddas, weigh in.
  """""""""""""""""""""""""
  
  All that and there is the economic slowdown that will hit them harder than anything.
  
  She also goes on to talk about what will happen if Labour get a bad local election result.
  
  The big question if that happens is will Brown survive to lead them to the next election? Who will be their new leader?
  
  Perhaps DC might go easy on Brown for a bit to help him survive....that said the alternatives are a very unpreposessing lot.
  
  
  
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  barry
  usual dribble from you
  
  stil trying to work out your 7th april posting
  
  
  10% labour voters preferred GB
  3% " " " DM
  yet you say even labour supporters go for DC
  dont follow\that
  
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Taken from an article by a respected journalist actually, Keith.
  
  You can go on denying the internal problems in the Labour Party as long as you like, claiming it to be dribble, but everyone knows that the rot has set in.
  
  As for the earlier post, it is quite self explanitory, whether you choose to understand it or not. Perhaps you might need a maths lesson to understand it though?
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  Come on Barry we all know you are a secret labour supporter that hasn't come out the closet yet.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  oooooo Dave, my secret is out. The shame of being exposed in this way hurts, I now need counselling and maybe I can sue you for exposing me and for the character assination as a result!!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Baz
  All I can say is we have been here 3 times before, Whilst YOU are committed to your cause sadly when ever uncle Gordon goes for it the very next day you will on here blaming some one else because you didn't win enough seats.
  
  You clearly still are a Maggie fan, and DC is no where near her background her viewpoint, he actually at times has distanced himself from her views.
  Obviously DM wants to paint a nice picture of this new party that no longer steers to the right, but in the background many of your party are sniping wanted him to go further than his middle England stand, they want to turn the clock back to the Maggie days.
  
  Well that aint what I want, and I think your party should be honest and clear on these types of issues, as you have said Baz maggie didn't like unions and actually destroyed many, but with this came employers who were helped to put work forces with very little rights, again not what i want.
  
  I was active in my union and actually maggie and i agree partyly agreed on unions disputes, where members should be balloted and my union was one of the first to go down that line, and i have al;so pushed for ballots on such issues.
  
  Whilst unions should have its house in order, there never was under maggie any level playing field,
  But then as you say Baz maggie was out to destroy the working class and unions and for many she did, which has caused even more problems seen today.
  
  Anyway have a nice day today, lovely sunshine , bad weather to come so they say
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I have to say that I am a little disillusioned with Mr. Brown and the Labour party in recent years, however I would extend this to the political arena in general. I find it amazing how people here can align themselves with ‘New Labour’ and still claim to be anywhere near the left of British politics. I would place my own outlook left of centre and feel slightly cheated by the actions of New Labour. I am well and truly one of Thatcher’s children, starting with Mrs. Thatcher being voted in 3 days after my birth and ending with me voting the Tories out on my 18th birthday. I feel that Mr. Blair was more a fan of Mrs. T than DC is, and this is the basis of my disillusionment. There is a serious lack of political identity and much as I generally disagree with right wing ideas, they are essential in a balanced democracy. Without this dialect, we are reduced to our current situation of cheap point scoring and poorly thought out policies for the sake of winning votes, rather than ideas that form part of a shared ethos. And just when I’m upset by the current British system, Buckingham Palace choose to tell everyone we are entering recession, but it’s OK the Queen is not having her wedding anniversary party! How on earth is that an apolitical constitutional monarchy?
  I would agree that we cannot take polls from right-wing broad sheets as good descriptors of public opinion, but things certainly do seem to have taken a negative slant recently. There are one or two other topics I would like to comment on, although I am not too sure about the ‘new letter club’ it seems a little undemocratic for my liking!
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  that was an interesting read DT.
  
  we get an interesting mix of views, would be good to here more of yours.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. I do wish that you would respond to the specific points raised rather than go off in different tangents. Likewise you do like to mis-quote and mis-represent my views.
  
  DC is closer to Mrs T than either you Keith or DT seem to think. I am more right wing than DC and proud to be. As a traditional Tory I detest things like soft on crime attitudes, the underspend on Defence, excessive benefit payments, and the pc attitude that is undermining our British culture. I am, however fully supportive of DC as I accept and prefer the two party system where the policy debate is within Parties before an election rather than have chaos after an election cobbling agreements between Parties to get a majority.
  
  If you think what I say is wrong, fine - say why you think that and I would love to debate it with you. Just stop getting personal and mis-representing me, Mrs T and DC....
  
  DT - I agree that I would like to much more conviction politics and free debate unshackled by political correctness. One reason Party leaders are more wary of getting stuck into frank discussion and true leadership is the way the media and others do just what Keith does to me, misrepresent and twist what is being said. This has led to greater caution.
  
  These days, unfortunately, focus groups lead the debate.
  
  By the way - I did realise who you were the other day!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have spent most of this nice sunny day poring over tax books, checking up on tax 'angles' that tend not to arise in my daily business life so I can pass an exam on them next Monday. Bit of a waste of time in many respects but such is life....
  
  What is has shown me, more starkly than ever, is how much more complex our tax system is now compared to 11 years ago. In particular what a nightmare Tax Credits are. Gordon Brown has a reputation for making things ever more complex and I certainly can see why.
  
  Taking a bit of 'light relief' from this I have had a look around the net and found an interesting article that really places they last 11 years or Gordon Brown as Chancellor and PM into perspective. Remember under Granitas he was responsible for domestic policy well outside his Treasury brief.
  
  Here is an extract:
  I hope you find it as interesting and telling as I did.
  
  """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
  In 10 years, Labour has spent about £1trillion - that's £1,000,000,000,000 - more than would have been the case, inflation adjusted, if government spending had been held at 1997-98 levels. That's about £50,000 for every household. Education has received an extra £185bn, health an additional £269bn and welfare, ie, social security benefits, £343bn more.
  
  And what do we have to show for it? A state-school system that is so poor, there is a stampede into private education, and our best universities are being bullied by Ed Balls and his henchmen to abandon the quest for excellence in order to accommodate pupils from under-performing comprehensives.
  
  Russell Group universities - Oxbridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Warwick and 14 other elite institutions - spend fortunes trawling the country in search of state-educated youngsters and yet remain under intense pressure to debase standards in order to meet Government entry "targets".
  
  In a 2007 poll of 3,000 doctors, more than 70pc did not believe the extra money for the NHS had been well spent and the same percentage felt there had been no meaningful improvement in care. The fact that 55pc of senior doctors have medical insurance tells us that even insiders want out.
  
  Brown likes to boast about economic growth and rising employment, so why in 2007-08 is the Government doling out £156bn to 30m recipients in 40 types of social security payments and tax credits? That's nearly five times the defence budget. Benefits are gobbling up about 30pc of state spending. This is not an accident, it's how Labour has expensively purchased a client class.
  
  Our Armed Forces are betrayed, private pensions are plundered, violent crimes are rising, quangos proliferate, immigration is out of control and Britain will receive less back per capita from the European Union's 2007-13 budget than any other member.
  
  * Squandered - How Gordon Brown is wasting over one trillion pounds of our money, by David Craig. Publisher: Constable.
  
  """"""""""""""""""""""""""
  Read this book and prepare to weep. (Jeff Randall, The Telegraph.)
  
  """"""""""""""""""""""""""
  
  Says it all really. Tears flowing into my coffee thinking about how I have been robbed of so much tax for what, nothing worthwhile. That £50k extra tax that my family have paid would certainly have been spent (or saved) better than Brown has spent it.
  
  Dont you think you could have spent your £50k better too?...............
  
  
  
  
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  I cannot comment on tax as whichever government has been in power urI have found it a minefield.
  It is stated that benefits take 30% of the budget and I have no evidence to the contrary so my question is Barry, what would be your idea of benefit reform and what specific members of our society would you target.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Benefits, Dave, should be returned to a basic safety net. Personally I would adopt US style workfare for the unemployed for instance.
  
  I certainly would get rid of the dreadful tax credits. It is the economics of the madhouse. I am a higher rate taxpayer and I get some CTC (not much now, true...). Even I, a financial expert, have a problem working these things out. No wonder people (including revenue) get into a mess. Better to return that money, including the excessive administration costs, to the public with an increased tax free allowance. That is the best way to help the low paid and encourage people into work, allowing them to keep more of their own money.
  
  This is a complex subject but it is an important issue that needs to be dealt with.
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  Barry I need educating here, what is American workfare and what would you do with a person who faces long-term employment and is unable to work as opposed to somebody who wilfully refuses to work.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Speaking as we are on financial matters, I note with interest this morning that the EURO is now the world's strongest currency...so whats it like living next door to the world's strongest currency and not being part of it. Well not good if you are trading with Europe, not good if you are planning to holiday in Europe. You will now get buggerall Euros for your pound down at the cash exchange point.
  
  The EURO is now worth 80p. All its life it has been hovering around the 65p or 67p mark and now the pound gets weaker and the Euro gets stronger. This is good news if you have a few assets in other countries within the eurozone ( ie Ireland) as in relation to the pound you are now worth more ! So Im all right jack as was left some humble bricks and mortar in the Emerald Oisle when the parental tier passed on, but what about everyone else?
  
  Maybe its time to reconsider joining the EURO. I mean isnt all this exchange nonsense with our near neighbours a pointless pain that keeps recurring, its an endless nightmare for business.
• keef, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  in posting I was just pointing out as you admit that there are as many disagreements in the conservative party internally as there is in the labour party, and thats healthy for debate.
  
  I'v said before on here that our views BAZ probably in some ways are close, im not sure on the benefits system how far you would want to see this or any govt go , but the system is being abused and is costing us all a lot of dosh, it needs urgent reform, but iv also said i don't fink gordon brown, DC or the lib dem bloke are willing to do so.
  I hope im wrong.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave. Workfare means at its simplest benefit claimants have to work to get benefit.
  
  An example. Walking the dog this morning I notice a road sweeping machine hard at work. What if the operator had a team, two or three benefit claimants, following him around getting into the corners, cleaning off graffiti and getting chewing gum up off the pathways. The machine can only do so much and have you seen the amount of chewing gum on the pavements?
  
  There are many community based jobs that could be done that just dont get done now. A team cleaning the Dour daily perhaps.
  
  The idea would not to replace existing jobs, far from it, it would be to suppliment them and provided added community value.
  
  The system should not become a beaurocratic paper chase and needs to be kept simple.
  
  Sitting around on your a**e claiming benefits should not be an option, no work no benefit..
  
  That is a very simplistic explanation but this type of thing has worked well in the USA. We now have families in the UK with 3 generations who have not worked and have only known benefits. That cannot continue.
  
  DC I know is very much in favour of this type of approach.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. The Euro again....
  
  It may be strong at the moment, two years ago it was a basket case. In two years time, who knows, it may be a basket case again. That is the beauty of floating currencies. Each country can manage its economy to suit its needs and allow the currency to find its appropriate level.
  
  We know what a disaster it was for the UK when Nigel Lawson linked the £ to the DMark and then when John Major joined the European Monetary System. Mrs T fought against this but all the establishment were against her, not only the pro-Europe Tories but also most of the press, the CBI, the Unions and yes the Liberals and Labour Parties. All of them were in favour of joining the EMS and placed intolerable pressure on Mrs Thatcher to do so over several years. I remember headlines even now, screaming at her to support her 'brilliant' Chancellor.
  
  They were all wrong and Mrs T and her adviser Alan Waters were vindicated when we crashed out of the system. But the damage that was done while we were in the EMS meant people were re-posessed and many lost their jobs.
  
  I dont want that again and that is why we must not join the Euro which is merely the successor to the EMS.
  
  The British economy has a number of key differences to the European economies. These differences are highly significant factors that make the Euro bad news for us. We have far more micro and small businesses for a start. Our whole credit system is different in key areas in ways that it is more favourable to setting up and running a small business. We have much more home ownership too. Just recently we now find that we also have much higher debt levels as well, making it worse.
  
  If we linked our economy to Europe by joining the Euro we would lose control and our economic policy would not be set to meet our needs specifically. Businesses and home-owners would suffer and it would be a disaster. The only good thing Brown has done is to keep us out of the Euro.
  
  The single currency anyway was always a political issue and not an economic one. It is all about forging a Federal State of Europe and that is the last thing we need.
  
  I still believe that our future is not as a part of the EU. We will get out eventually.
• Dave, Dover wrote:
  Barry
  First of all thankyou for explaining to me what American Workfare is.
  The principle seems to be that to obtain benefit you must earn it by doing some useful work that benefits the community.
  I should like a response to the second part of my question which basically asks what you would do about the person who has over a number of years worked to provide for his family and then suddenly finds that he is unable to work anymore say for health reasons. As I read it Workfare makes no provision for that.
  Also what would you do about the soaring number of single parent families who must take up a considerable proportion of the budget?
  I do have an opinion on the subject but before I can enter any meaningful discussion with you one or two points have to be made clearer.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  Hold the front page,Barry and I agree about something,keep the great British Pound,mind you when I go to Germany next month I am not looking forward to paying incredible rates to buy my Euros from some rip off exchange buro.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i noticed that dave, barry is very clever with his answers.
  
  i have asked him his views on council tax, the heating payout for pensioners, free bus fares nationwide for the elderly and disabled and tax credits of the less well off working people.
  if the answer does not show the blue people in a good light there will be no reply.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - you do talk a load of old rot at times. Lets be clear, I am representing my views, I no longer hold any official position in the Conservative Party.
  
  David Cameron I know is supportive of workfare and it is likely to be in the manifesto, but exactly how these proposals would look, I have no idea and I will find out when everyone else does, nearer the election.
  
  Dave, I had thought I had fully explained my understanding of how workfare operates in parts of the USA. There are some diffeences between States, however.
  
  You asked about incapacity claimants. I can speak on this more from from a financial professional point of view rather than politics. First of all there is the problem of those already on long term incapacity. There is good anacdotal evidence that people have been shoved onto incapacity as a way of getting them off the unemployment figures.
  
  The solution to this is in the long term incapacity rules themselves. To remain on long term incapacity a claimant has to pass the 'all work test' in other words be shown unable to perform any occupation. If these rules were properly enforced then those who can work would be back in the jobs market (in my scheme of things they would then fall under the workfare regime). If they pass the test then the benefit continues.
  
  I would go further and do more to encourage people to take advantage of private insurance schemes (income protection) while they are in work and healthy. They should be offered tax relief on premiums with no corresponding tax on benefits. More should be done to encourage employers to offer group schemes to employees with some financial benefits (they can get tax relief on premiums already in most cases). Clearly 'approved' policies would have to meet certain terms but I will not bore you with my ideas on that other than to say 'own occupation' terms with benefits to State retirement age should be included.
  
  The result is that those who get insurance payments would be better off than on benefits (inc means tested).
  
  Single mums are a different challenge and I am not certain of the best answer here. Certainly more should be done to discourage irresponsible behaviour but of course many single mums are widowed or have been deserted. This is a complex one but I do know that Iain Duncan Smith has brought forward some ideas in a very authorative report into 'The Broken Society' centred on supporting families.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I’m glad you know who I am now Barry, I quite enjoyed our speedy meeting.
  I’m all for the concept of ‘workfare’ as in some cases people have come to rely on the welfare state as a feasible career option. This of course is not sustainable and as pointed out with 3rd generation claimants the systems is at breaking point. I also see this idea creating an engagement with a common interest, increasing individuals understanding of community and society. I had an interesting conversation with a group of friends a while ago about the notion of a national service along the same lines, as opposed to militarism which can suggest so many contradictions to young people in our media age (I am not saying that the armed forces are bad.) I think the need to reengage individuals with collective goals is really important in today’s age. I feel synergetic society is a far stronger model than individuals primarily looking out for themselves, because it fits not only with the concept of family but also with the notion neighbourhood, community and shared identity.
  
  I’m sure it is DC’s intention to fix a broken society Barry but if he is truly a follower of Mrs. T, surely he should be questioning its very existence? Iain Duncan Smith’s document attempts to address many failings within our current situation but just documents what we already know. I think I commented on the content some time ago, especially on the rather unsophisticated attempt to expose the extent adult illiteracy.
  
  Generally, not party specific, it is all very well telling people to get up off their backside and work “because you can be rich too” but this falls apart in our media age and it is no wonder people are embracing celebrity and fame (X-Factorism) as a serious way to transcend the poor social mobility of this country. People no longer adhere to the protestant work ethic, and due to the information explosion of the past 40 years, are more than aware of the serious inequalities within our society. OK there are people that do beat the apparent system but determinism is still the prevalent factor in an individual’s ultimate position. A good example of this is a close friend of mine who works as a butler for a member of the aristocracy who is a member of the House of Lords, a position obtained by being born, meritocratic I think not. It is no wonder people find it hard to make sense of it all.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Hi DT.
  
  I do find it ironic that social mobility has reduced over 11 years of a Labour Government. I am not surprised by that because I find that many of the 'solutions' that they favour tend to lock people in more to state dependancy and subsidy rather than free them.
  
  You use that 'misquote' of Mrs T. and do her a great injustice in doing so. There is a great deal in common between Mrs T and DC in fact much more than seperates them.
  
  Part of the problem here is the mythology that has grown up about Mrs T engendered by her political opponents. She was (IS, rather, the great lady is thankfully is still with us) in so many ways the exact opposite to the picture that is painted of her.
  
  She is very caring and very human, you simply just have to compare the way she behaved over the wounded and bereaved of the Falklands War compared to Blair and Brown's attitude more recently. The handwritten letters to the families of those who lost a loved one, the hospital visits and indeed the visits to military bases to thank the troops. All done at the time mostly without publicity, with the details only really coming to light later being revealed by the families. I have not seen any reports that Blair or Brown doing any of this and we have all seen the cynical use of the Forces by Brown when he went to Iraq.
  
  I actually do believe that a military style national service is what is needed to sort out so many of our youth. You yourself can see the benefits of the CCF but it is not necessarily these volunteers for whom such training would do most good. Those that would benefit most are those least likely to go for it.
  
  I would not suggest the old 2 years service or anything like that. I think that in preparation for working life all youngsters should receive 3 months of military training at the end of their formal schooling. It should be under military discipline and controlled by ex NCO's. A great emphasis being on strictly enforced discipline, fitness and adventure training. They should get to do all the things that they dont get in civvy life these days including arms training. They will gain so much, self respect, a sense of achievement and a greater understanding about what life is all about.
  
  I remember the 'Bad Lads Army' programme and the visible transformation of these 'bad lads' in just a month and that was only making a tv series.
  
  DC I know has national service plans, but military style will only be a small part of this and I suspect it would be much too watered down for my taste, giving the 'ealth and safety' fascists too much involvement. But still it is something and hopefully will work.
  
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I’ve just had to Google Mrs. T’s comment and I will still stand by the fact that it’s a fairly damming attack on the concept of society. Plainly it’s a ‘rights and responsibility’ comment that she is making, but suggests that one must meet obligation before entitlement. Once again this is a floored approach as rights must be given in most cases before responsibilities are fully understood. She also suggests that governments should have no liability for certain basic human needs, i.e. housing, which would explain why she sold off all of our council houses, and this is the best bit...sold them to us. I don’t feel I’m being unfair to Mrs. T just honest. None of us would have the need for private insurances if these systems were effective, and no one should have to suffer or go without just because they are poorer than someone else. However abuse of this ideology has led us to our current situation.
  
  I am not surprised social mobility is lower, as I fully accept that social mobility is aided by Capitalism and not by left wing ideals (not suggesting that Labour fall into this category) But my point is that the idea of true social mobility can’t be peddled alongside the remains of our old fashioned feudal class system.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  An interesting comment DT about rights and responsibilities.
  
  You and I take a different view of this. The Human Rights Act has shifted the balance between rights and responsibilities far too far in the wrong direction. So much so that it would be reasonable to re-label it 'The Criminal and Terrorists Rights act'.
  
  I believe that responsibilities come first and as such your earn your rights. If rights come first or if responsibilities are ignored you have a very dangerous situation.
  
  We see only today the terrorist being allowed to stay because of his 'rights'. I would say that he has forgone any rights to our protection as a result of his terrorists activities.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  ok barry, you think i "talk a lot of old rot sometimes".
  does this mean that you will not answer my questions?
  
  i have raised these issues many times, asking two questions, a) what do you think is correct b) what would the blue people do.
  
  quite simple really.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  No, howard - it just means what it says. So then will you answer my questions and justify, for instance, Labour's failure to fund defence properly or why it has seen fit to raise taxes on the low paid?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I see that Gordon Brown has announced that he will not attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics.
  
  He avoided the Lisbon Treaty signing too.
  
  He chickened out of calling an election after deliberately stoking it up.
  
  He was, as Chancellor, well known for keeping his head down and away from the press whenever controversy arose.
  
  As PM he is a total embarrassment. Did any see that broadcast he made in the USA, cringemaking. He smiles and young children hide behind the sofa....
  
  Gordon Brown must not only be the most unprepossessing PM we have ever had but also the most cowardly.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW yes I touched on this on the Olympic Flame thread in the Club and sadly Gordon trundles from one PR snot globule to the next...I mean its just been really bad up til now and I see little prospect of an improvement, although one lives in hope. Unfortunately from a Labour point of view he is looking a lame duck and has never fully recovered from flunking out on the Election. Maybe his destiny was always to be No2 as he is not engaging the electorate in his current No1 position. For the first time now I really fear Labour could lose an Election as neither Gordon Brown himself or Darling have the charisma needed to spark recovery amongst the populace...and the polls show they will need quite a recovery.
  
  I think it was Bern who said somewhere...if China was going to cause such a guilt ridden cataclysm amongst politicans everywhere why did they give it to China..or words to that effect. I agree with the sentiment.
  
  But I still think we should engage with China.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  you are a true politician,resorting to personal insults as a way of avoiding questions.
  i am not a politician so will answer yours .
  
  firstly i have no idea about defence funding, please tell me about it.
  secondly, you will be aware that the low paid get tax credits that make up for the 10% basic rate and mean that they are better off.
  is there any danger that you will now answer my questions?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - insults? I have not insulted you any more than you did me....
  
  Defence spending, easy cop out there. I suggest that you read the newspapers or on-line news. If you read the Mirror or Guardian then I can understand you not knowing anything about it. I have posted many times on the issue of Defence spending as it is something I feel strongly about and I dont have time, or the will, to go through it all again. The Government's betrayal of ouir armed forces is a scandal.
  
  What you are saying about tax credits is simply untrue as many Labour backbenchers are themselves saying.
  
  What an absurd thing to do anyway, Howard, taxing people with all the costs and beaurocracy that entails then hand money back with an even worse layer of costs and beaurocracy. Better not to tax them in the first place. Have you ever read up on how tax credits work? It is the most amazingly complicated process that only a truly warped mind could devize.
  
  "Child element of £545 reducing by £0.0677 per £ over an income of £50,000", is perhaps the easiest bit to understand. It really is a nightmare of a system and exactly the opposite to what is needed.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW has just made the 500th Comment in this section. Well done BarryW..well done all contributors and with nearly 15,000 views as well too, politics is alive and well right here.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  your stereotyping is rather crude.
  i read neither of those 2 papers.
  
  i have answered your questions honestly, i know nothing about defence spending, so i have not attempted to bullsh*t my way out of it.
  
  your turn now.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I have now added the latest press release from Charlie Elphicke above. Charlie is of course the direct Conservative challenger to MP Gwyn Prosser in any forthcoming election so am happy to keep the balance from all sides.
  
  The abolition of the lower tax band has worried people from all sides of the political coin. Indeed many Labour MPs are in revolt over the situation so I cannot think what a Labour government was doing with this one, as Labour are traditionally the champions of the underpaid. Their argument as I understand it is that a lot of people are better off. Well so it seems but you have to be higher up the financial ladder to benefit as I understand it. But it's the poorest we all want to protect at the end of the day.
  
  Charlie Elphicke went on to say....
  "The crunch vote on the 10p rate will be on the 28th April. Poverty, its alleviation and the bringing of success to those who have it not are the major reasons I'm in politics. I really hope the Government, or its MPs, have a change of heart and stop this change. Best of all would be to increase the personal allowance -
  I've long felt we should aim for it to be between £7,500
  and £10,000. That takes the very poorest out of tax altogether.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Many thanks to Gwyn for responding to Charlie's challenge above. I myself am certainly in harmony with Gwyn on this issue and am delighted to see him making a stand on the 10p abolition and am sure many in the town here will appreciate and welcome his positioning. I just dont know what Prime Minister Brown was thinking here.
  
  Perhaps I should try and explain what we mean about the 10p issue to those who dont understand.
  
  The Labour Governmant introduced some years back a special tax band for low earners at the 10p rate...and an excellent idea it was. In the recent Budget, and it wasnt a popular budget for a number of reasons, but in this aforementioned Budget the Government abolished this tax band. The 'Normal' tax rate was at 22p, but in this recent Budget the Government reduced this level to 20p, thinking many people would benefit. And indeed some do, but here comes the problem, the low earner rate of 10p was abolished at the same time crippling thousands of the poorest families.
  
  In fact 'thousands' might be a huge underestimation. John Snow, while interviewing Gordon Brown on C4 last night, suggested the figure of those affected might be around 5,000,000 - thats 5 million low paid people caught in a trap that in effect doubled their tax burden from the 10p level to the 20p level at a stroke.One noticed that the Prime Minister didnt dispute the 5M figure.
  
  So at the very best this was a PR clanger extraordinaire...almost everybody is upset with it, particularly of course those clobbered.
  
  The Government should reverse this decision.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB.
  
  The change to the 10% band was announced over a year ago. We were saying then that it was an increase in tax on the low paid. Financial professionals, however, are usually ignored by this Government as we tend not to be 'one of them'. Likewise the Opposition (except when a Conservative policy is received well by the public, then they steel that and water it down....)
  
  A chance to make a change was in the Autumn statement and then the Budget. Nothing was done.
  
  Gwyn Prosser ignored it a year ago and in the financial statement and only now, after the budget and the start of the new tax year, does he say something. The time for Labour backbenchers, like him, to make a fuss was a year ago, not now.
  
  Were they perhap just lazy or maybe they just really did not care and only care now because they see their Parliamentary seats disappearing? Just complacency perhaps and that is just as bad.
  
  I note from the Dover Express that there is a polling forecast that Charlie will win Dover. A narrow majority but one that will grow as the economic burden gets worse. That is the only reason GP is suddenly so active.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  The only problem is with opinion polls in mid term,is that they are useless,if they are bad the Goverment won't call an election,any Goverment always give you the bad news in the middle term to give you the good news at the end so you vote for them.Both Labour and Conservative govs in the past have done it.
  It is like house prices,it makes no difference to you if the prices go up or down if you are not selling,unless you have just bought and don't sell,because long term they will always rise.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Well done Gwyn for making your position clear, and I'm sure you have been saying this to ministers since it was first annouced.
  
  Sadly Charlie cant use this political point scoring
  well done Gwyn
  
  Nice to see Labour are using forum
• Vic Matcham , River wrote:
  Lets have the election A.S.P.
  I am ready to go for it again.
  
  Vic [M]
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  chas does love to grab a headline.
  did not work this time.
  
  i wonder about his crocodile tears for the low paid though.
  
  his leader and party voted against the minimum wage.
  
  would he have stood by his conscience then, and defied the leadership?
• dave, whitfield wrote:
  Doubt it Howard i've yet to find a Tory Politician with a conscience.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  Thats not fair Dave I know lots of Torys who have a conscience but they are pointing it in the wrong direction, the latest message from us Labour people is clear and right,at your service-by your side.
  Wonder what our friend Barrys feelings on the Tory proposals of doing away with Sure/Home start,or stopping the School rebuilding programme or what they are going to cut to the £10 bn in tax cuts they have promised.
  Locally 90 people will be moved out of thier sheltered accommodation and spread around the district...why...to save money,where is the Social justice in that,now the Quarterdeck is up for sale why...to save money,so what is the message,vote for me and I will look after you or vote for me and I will sell everything I can.Watch your green spaces they are next,Sports pitches,Childrens play areas,and given half the chance Cemetaries.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Im interested in Vic's last comment,
  Didnt you join the conservatives vic? have you left them?
  Barryw are you aware he will stand against Charlie? will your party allow?
  
  With all that said, I will give my advice as i have done to your face Vic
  I realy do feel on the political front you should callit a day.
  Read the signs on past results, the people have spoken many times, and iv not heard a swing to Vic, in fact iv heard the opposite.
  
  Of course Vic, its your call(or maybe barryw's lot?)
  
  but you still owe me that pint!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  do not hold your breath john.
  
  barry does not reply to anything that is not covered by the central office website.
  
  no doubt they will get in next time due to government incompetence.
  
  i shudder to think about the old people losing their heating allowance, the low paid working hard, but losing their tax credits, the sick having to wait longer for treatment.
  
  
• Guest 648 wrote:
  John I have read your comments in the paper and now on this forum.We are not moving people out of shelterd accomodation all over the district.Those in Dover will stay in Dover unless they request to go elsewhere.Have you visited the shelterd schemes which are out for consultation.Would you like to live in an outdated scheme sharing toilets and bathrooms?Times are changing and the schemes of the sixties are out dated.Roly Eckhoff as it was known will be ready by next year and it is an extra care scheme.The government of the day is making it harder to maintain the stock as you well know all homes have to be decent by 2010.Rents have been kept low. Those people who have moved to Sunny Corner are very pleased with there new home.Tough decisions have to be made and the schemes out for consultation were not decent.These elderly residents deserve better standards.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  Sue,where in Dover,now the goverment gets the blame for the decent home standard,4 years ago Sue you were going to refurbish them but not now..Why? I know the Goverment is being hard on Councils but what has been done in 4 years.My Nan used to live in Moat Sole in Sandwich and she had to shared a toilet with her neighbour for many years,then through a grant they built her.her own small bathroom,but what she wanted more than anything is to be were she wanted,with the neighbours she had known for years.
  My Nan even moved out of my Mum's house to go back to the same housing so that she could be near her friends,she was happy just being where she wanted to be,she had the choise what choise do these people have that are being moved to save money.
  
  
• Suenicholas, river wrote:
  John you well know the Housing Revenue Account is ring fenced,the capital receipt from these sales will go into the HRA.Currently the HRA will go into deficit within the next few years if we donot act now.The Right to Buy sales have diminished over the last two years.The government have reduced the subsidy and inflation on repairs etc has risen.When the tenants took the decision in 2005 not to go to a ballot thus remaining with the Council they knew then the HRA was fragile.
  You say your mother wanted to stay in her own home and so the move now is for people to stay in their own homes with support We cannot run schemes under capicity.Manley House has many voids and William Muge has been hard to let.I visited these schemes and we have to look to the future.They are not decent and we cannot continue to let them .There are RSLs out there who may wish to build new schemes ,that is why its out for consultation.All residents will be given a sum of money and also money for curtains ,carpets etc. We have several schemes in Dover run by RSLs
  The way that the older generation are looked after in the future has changed over the past decade.People who once moved into sheltered schemes in their sixties now consider themseves too young .You are looking at people wanting to stay in their own homes.We no longer have resident Wardens and supporting people only give support to the most vunerable.If you are a sprightly seventy year old there is no care package.Staff have to be paid the financial side of the HRA is very complex.The weekly rent that tenants pay has to balance the books.The amount of rent increase is controlled by government.Talking of moving In the areaI represent my ederly have to stay in homes they can ill aford to maintain or move into another town to privately run schemes Some have had to move to Deal or Dover.Thanet sold their sheltered schemes afew years ago.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well you Labour lot certainly have vivid imaginations in your little world.
  
  Sad, really that you cannot address the issues.
  
  Not one of you has actually tried to explain off why Gwyn Prosser and other Labour backbenchers did not try to do something about the low paid tax rise a year ago when we were first told about it.
  
  Was it normal Prosser laziness? or was it perhaps just a matter of not being in touch? More likely it is just the fear of losing his seat that has prompted a response.
  
  You prefer to go off in your own fantasy tangents and obscure and ignore the measures this bunch of dummies are up to.
  
  Difficult to defend the indefencable so I can understand why...
• howard mcsweeeney, dover wrote:
  nice try barry.
  
  it is your turn to answer questions.
  not your strong point though.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  O.K.
  I had a meeting on Tusday with Cllr Watkins and Cllr Collor.
  I am now going to rewrite a letter by Cllr Watkins after that I will tell you where I stand.
  The heading of the letter is " MY REGION" by Cllr Paul Watkins,Leader of Dover District Council, and Assembly member on the Regional Transport Board and Joint Europe Committee.
  There is an air of anticipation and positive buzz from Dover,s population.
  They sense the shape and the future of Dover developing through draatic change and are eager to embrace it.
  Change is coming from many sources delivering new landscapes,removing vistas of dereliction and addressing attitudes of apathy permeating sections of the community.
  Whether it is a new health facility replacing a Victorian workhouse called Buckland Hospital or new retail area located in the St James district of the town,change will be clearly evident.
  
  The high speed rail link,s arrival in 2009 is a major driver for optimism.
  Evidence shows that wherehigh speed services are provided,economies expand.Travel times to and from London are reducing to within reach of the"Golden HOUR"increasing the attractiveness of the town to commuters.
  
  A £2.8million EU partnership upgrade of the approaches to Dover,s Priory station precedes the 2009 arrival of Hitachi trains.
  This project characterises the focused joint partnership working currently active in Dover.
  Increased car parking provision and integrated public transport are moving from drawing board to reality.
  
  Recently Dover successfully fought off the imposition of an open prison at redundant Connaught barracks adjacent to Dover historic castle.
  This sought-after site has magnificent panoramic views across town,port and channel and has now been acquired by English Partnerships for housing.
  Hidden away in the site is a gem of a Napoleonic fortress, a regeneration challenge to be brought forward as a living ,working heritage project.
  
  New business opporttunities are being delivered with the opening of the town,s White Cliffs Business Park phase 2, an EU Assisted Area Zone at Whitfield.Together with its 3rd phase there is potential to accommodate 3000 jobs.
  
  But it does not end there, the real show stopper has to be the port of Dover project to build a new four berth 2nd terminal at its Western Docks.
  Alongside this crucial developmet -essential to accommodate doubling 20 year freight numbers -comes an innovative maritime regeneration opportunity in the Wellington Dock area. With the addition of a parkland bridge spanning the A20.
  Dover town can be reconnected to its maritime assets currently severed by a "Moving wall of steel"which ptly describes snaking freight traffic through Dover.
  
  To deliver Maitime Quarter and Town Centre regenertion, the port, local authorities, regeneration agencies and the private sector are proposing a special purpose Vehicle company to deliver the project.
  
  Dover District Council supported by its partners and local business has submitted an application for Growth point designation to drive these massive projects forward. It is recognised that growth and jobs will come and without the right transport/road infrastructure, housing numbers and choices, sustainable development WILL NOT be delivered.
  
  Dover is planning for growth delivered by a skilled local workforce and at the hightest sustainable construction standards.
  
  In awakening Dover, we already have world class heritage, countryside and port,we are now rebuilding a WORLD CLASS TOWN.
  
  That is the letter and after our meeting to I came away and got off the fence, Cllr Watkins and Cllr Collor are going to be here a very long time and we can now see some of their hard work coming together.
  
  Cllr Vic Matcham
  
  
  
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  I see Charlie is agreeing with me,'Polls can be very distracting and completely wrong'the only time an opinion poll counts is when people put thier x on a little piece of paper
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Lovely stuff in Vics posting. It would be good to see Dover benefit from some investments. I am uneasy about the focus on transport - trains and ships taking people through rather than to Dover......but I am not going to moan yet. I didn't see much about actually improving the town itself, although I understand about the knock on effect of investment around and area, but I am still uneasy about the effect in real terms for real people and real places. A town has to be attractive in many ways to move upwards, not just in terms of transport. Trust me I am not being negative for the sake of it - I am giving a small hurrah as we speak - but I have some reservations.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bern I think the idea on all the transport initiatives is not to take people through the town but to bring people to the town. I think the politicians see the High Speed Rail link as a real chance to bring wealth and prosperity to the streets of Dover and indeed it might. People will find we are within accessible reach of commuter London with its jobs etc and also consequently people with London money levels will move here to live, as there are still bargains to be had in property, with the resultant increasing wealth for all.
  
  If it works out that way it could be good economically, but sadly at the same time anywhere within daily commuting range of London changes personality for ever. That old battling Dover spirit, hewn from the chalk of an isolated enclave, could be lost.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I see that the formidable and matriachal Labour MP Gwynneth Dunwoody has died. Yes she of the acid tongue and the waspish personality has left us fairly suddenly. She was a mere strappling of 77 but I was convinced her scary demeanour would scare away even death itself. She certainly put the shivers up many a male MP, and oftimes left them as chattering wittering wrecks. But no...even the greatest, the toughest, and the best, fall under the scythe of the grim reaper.
• Type your name here...Bern, Dover wrote:
  She will be missed - a proper, honest, articulate politician. There can't be many left.....
• Jim, Dover wrote:
  I agree she was a fine woman and too good to lose.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I would have thought the Tories would have dived in promising to bring back the 10p tax situation should they be re-elected. I mean it is an obvious coup at the current time, in the current financial upheavel. But no. Caroline Spellman, dithered very convincingly on the issue on BBC's Question Time. Whether she doesnt have the authority to say either way I dont know but her vagueness seemed wholeheartedly weak. Wouldnt it be great to see a politician grasping the nettle for once.
  
  There seems to be an unparalled outbreak of dithering all over. If the Tories are voting against the Government on the 10p tax rate issue, the Government are abolishing it, then why not do the next step and promise its return if elected. It seems bizarre not to. Am I missing something here. The electorate want choice, but when the opportunity crops up to give them choice, the political parties flunk it. Weird.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  LaulB.
  
  First of all bringing back the 10p band would be the wrong thing to do. It really should never have been introduced in the first place.
  
  It would be far better to compensate by increasing the nil rate band, taking many lower paid out of the tax bracket all together.
  
  This morning on Conservativehome.com there is informed speculation about a 'compensation package' that the Conservatives are planning expected to cost c. £700m with the hope that Labour rebels will help get it through. They will not reveal details of that package until they are ready (Parliamentary timing is all important).
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  
  it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between the parties.
  they are all trying to be all things to all men.
  
  watch the results from the english council elections, and see the rise
  in the BNP vote for that very reason.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  On this one your correct on many aspects, but I hope your prediction on BNP vote does not come true, that wont help anyone.
  
  Politics is having a hard time, but I did find in my visit schools that
  children do have an interest in every day affairs and politics once you get them into talking about it.
  
  politicians are at present not seen in a good light, whatever the political colour or no colour.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  LABOUR MP's ARE REVOLTING:
  
  It was interesting to see that the Labour revolutionaries are now 40 strong and good on them. It is time the comfortably numb Gordon Brown was shaken up on this 10p tax matter...because despite his efforts to woo these MP's over late last night they are satisfyingly still standing strong. Hopefully Gwyn is one of these.
  
  I will give you an example why this revolt is necessary in the one -time traditional champion of the poor and underpriveleged Labour Party. A young man on BBC's Question Time told from the audience that he was a Postal Worker earning a low wage of £13,000 or so, yet his tax bill has gone up £7 per week under these recent tax hikes. I think this one young man speaking out, may have changed a tide far deeper than he realised, because that level of tax increase on someone young and poor and trying is totally unacceptable from a Labour Party.
  
  The reason many of us still vote Labour is because we have aspirations to see these well intentioned lower earners treated fairly.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - in your posting you say that the electorate want choice - I guess up to a point that is true, but fundamentally I think most people simply want good services and a fair deal and not a flood of choices to make. For instance, if you ask most people, they do not want to have to make decisions about where to have medical treatment or nursing attention when ill (choice) but would prefer a darn good local hospital which would leave people with access to family support if needed as an in-patient, reduced travel costs if out-patient, reduce anxieties about having to weigh up options at a time of crisis and promote confidence in the quality of care and support. Choice is goods and appropriate in many arenas, but there are many arenas in which choice is not a priority.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bern.. The real problem you have in any kind of monopoly situation is to achieve and maintain high standards.
  
  The point about 'choice' is in effect consumer power. If a hospital is not up to standard and your doctor has an option to send you elsewhere (along with the cash for treatment) you are introducing a measure of market pressure to improve standards.
  
  What is certain is that just throwing money at the NHS is not enough to get better standards of care. A whole reform package is needed.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I completely agree - money is only a part of the answer: leadership, strong guidance, clear aims and objectives, appropriate recruitment and retention of staff, and robust discipline are all part of the solution, for the NHS in particular but for any corporation really.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I think I understand what you were saying there about choice Bern..ie..we dont want different hospital choices to have our hernias fixed, we want one bloody good local one to do the job. The Conservatives were trying to offer us that mix, those choices on hospitals etc, as BarryW says there, but I myself dont think thats the kind of thing people are after. Not around here anyway, it may work better in London where the options might exist. It's very much a political scheme thought up in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
  
  People though are after a choice at election time.We want to know what the philosophies are, we want those differences out in the open because if we like those differences we can vote for them. As Howard says there below, its all too agreeable now, too much marketing, so all the rough edge differences between parties are erased for fear of not getting every single vote. In the end it means very little choice, so as some people say there is often very little point in voting.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  I think it also comes down to, what do the politicians want?
  
  It appears Charlie wants a new hospital in Dover
  Yet PW says it will never happen
  
  Reg's (hansell)had a full house at town hall and the debate on this one will go on.
  
  I think all the politicians should come clean and say if they support a new hospital for Dover
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  any politician would say that they would like to see a new hospital.
  it means nothing.
  just a means of garnering votes.
  
  if that same politician would come up with facts and figures the support the argument then i would listen.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard, I think you will find that Charlie has used his expertise in that respect, identifying the money needed. The big problem is getting the ppowers to be to agree to the spending.....
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  that was rather a restrained post from you.
  let us drop differences for a moment here.
  where would the funding come from and how much is needed.?
  
  the emergency services have already said that they have no problem with dover not having an hospital.
  
  therefore the argument should be on behalf of the east kent residents.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I am not an expert on this Howard so I cant answer. That is where Charlie comes in. He did say something to me about available funding and I believe there was a report in the Express a while back.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have not checked back on what Gwyn Prosser actually said about the 10p tax band, but I notice today that his name does not appear among the 39 Labour MPs who signed a protest motion in the House of Commons.
  
  If he was at all sincere you would have thought he would do so....
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - all your questions answered.....
  
  Follow this link and you can see Charlie's Healthcare Plan and indeed you can download a Word version.
  
  I have placed a gap in the address so it can be uploaded here so you will have to copy/paste and delete the gap.
  
  www. doverconservatives.com/
  
  This is more than our MP has been able to do!
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Following on from last Friday's meeting at the Town Hall, I came away thinking that maybe, just maybe there is a chance we could get a hospital here and what could I do to help.
  
  Today, I have sent round a petition form to all those on my address groups - just over 500 of them.
  
  Some of you may well have received that email and petition by now, the email says:
  
  
  "Good Morning
  
  I'm sure every one would agree that Dover needs/deserves a hospital and we can all justify reasons for it.
  
  I attended a meeting at Dover Town Hall last Friday evening for the public to put their views on this; Charlie Elphicke and Gwynn Prosser were their to lend their support for this.
  
  I'm not sure if it is actually cut and dried that we are NOT going to get a decision, but I am happy (through the Dover Loyalty Scheme) to support the push for a hospital for Dover.
  
  I have created a petition and I'm sure many more bodies will do so, including Town and Parish Councils.
  
  I will attach the petition to this email and ask you to print off copies of it and fill in your name and address and ask your friends, relations, neighbours, work colleagues etc. to do like wise.
  You could also of course send it out to those on your email address groups and lists, asking them to print off the form put their details it and get their friends, relations, work colleagues and neighbours to complete it and so on.
  
  Completed Dover Loyalty Scheme petitions can be returned to the Dover Town Council offices at Biggin Street, Dover.
  
  We were advised at the meeting on Friday that around 25,000 signatures would be needed, but wouldn't it be great if there were 25,000 individual letters - they would carry so much more weight, so if you can, please do write to:
  Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson MP.
  House of Commons
  London SW1A 0AA
  
  Kind Regards
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
  Dover Loyalty Scheme"
  
  
  If any one would like a petition form to complete and ask their neighbours, friends, relations or work-colleagues to sign it, pease email me (lindenrog@aol.com) and I'll send you one.
  
  I've had a reply from one person to say they have sent the email and petition on to a hundred people via email - if every one does that, we'll soon get our 25,000 signatures and more.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  It seems that Frank Field the leader of the revolting Labour MP's is satisfied with the concessions from the Alastair Darling and Gordon Brown, so as of now the revolt is off and all will be voting with the government. Local MP Gwyn Prosser also appears satisfied with this development, see letter above, so I expect therefore that its the best deal we are going to get for the lowly paid at this juncture.
  
  It is amazing though is it not how Alastair Darling got himself into this total PR mess in the first place. He seems determined to harm Labours chances at the final poll when it comes.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You cant blame Darling like that. It was Gordon Brown's mess, he announced the tax change a year ago claiming no-one would lose out. He was deliberately lying, he was told that many would lose out chose to ignore this and carry on with his lie. The hapless Darling is just his fall guy.
  
  He has been forced to come up with an inadequate solution, for some, after much dithering in order to buy off his backbenchers. They are easily bought too.
  
  But it really is utterly mad. He confiscates money from the low paid through excessive taxes and then pays some of it back, no doubt after a lot of form filling and beaurocracy with all the costs it entails.
  
  It is the economics of the madhouse adding layer after layer of complexity to an already far too complex system. There are large numbers of people who dont claim tax credits because of this.
  
  Far better simply not to tax the low paid in the first place by raising the tax threshold.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  With Labour down to 26% in the latest poll and Conservatives on 44% its perhaps time to consider the challenge that the Conservatives will have after the next election....
  
  Look at Labour's record
  
  The Human correction, Criminal Rights Act
  Uncontrolled immigration
  £billions leaking every year via new quangos
  Students (in England) now have to mortgage their futures to get to University
  24 hour binge drinking
  breakdown of the family
  vast increase in licensed gambling
  External debt quadrupled to $11 Trillion making us the second largest debtor nation in the world after the USA at $12 Trillion (we may overtake them later this year)
  Pension funds pillaged for £5Bn a year
  Gold reserves sold for a pittance
  Children leaving school unable to read or write
  NHS a basket case - 1 in 10 leave hospital sicker than when they went in.
  Increasing numbers unable to afford dentists
  Post Offices wiped off the map
  Threatened closure of GP surgeries
  Vast debts in off balance sheet PFIs
  Servicemen being killed pointlessly because they don't have enough kit.
  council taxes doubled - and more to come
  vast increases in stealth tax
  The entire military covenant broken
  Billions wasted in meaningless projects -
  NHS computer system etc etc
  Break up of the United Kingdom
  Sell out to the EU, signing up to the constitution
  An inefficient and complex Tax Credit system, a total disaster
  An ailing economy
  
  What a total disaster the last 11 year of Labour have been. They have propably got 2 more years to make things even worse....
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  well barry, reading between the lines, call me a cycnic, but i have a hunch that you will not be voting labour next time.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  But that's all O.K. Barry - because it's a Labour Government that's screwing everyone.
  
  As PaulB said a while ago, those on benefits will keep voting Labour because they are getting the (higher) benefits and not having to pay any tax - so they'll want to keep the status quo and it won't matter a fig to them how much the tax goes up - they don't pay any !
  
  The ordinary, single or married couple on a relatively low income are supposed to be those that traditionally the Labour party stood for helping, now that is not the case; they have become the Nasty Party.
  
  Even an ordinary family car is going to cost the earth to run - on petrol tax and road tax.
  It seems to me that their philosophy is to tax to the hilt, anyone who has any kind of earned income (ie, any one who has a job), just to make them state dependant - to bring everyone down to that level and yet they in turn are getting richer and richer with the higher and higher salaries they are demanding and their ridiculous expenses gravy train.
  
  Why does nobody care any more - this is not socialism at all.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 649 wrote:
  After reading all the letters most of you are not happy with what we have got.
  The way out of that will be VOTE FOR ME next time round. you will be geting a Dover man lets have for the first time a person from Dover.
  
  Cllr Vic Matcham [A voice for Dover]
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Vote for VIC MATCHAM
  
  A TRUE DOVER MAN for M.P. next Time,+I will be standing for D.T.C and the D.D.C. +K.C.C. I am going for the lot.
  
  Vic Matcham
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Go for it Vic and maybe we won't have to read the Gospel according to the Conservative (oh we've never done anything wrong) party quite so often.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  Looks like you are going to busy Vic,what about the European Parliament Vic,and aren't Italy looking for a president,or is it Australia,go for them all
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  victor
  
  so much for the uk, who will you be standing for in zimbabwe, the zanu pf and the mdc could use a man of your electoral experience.
  
  you could learn a lot from mr mugabe, about how to win elections.
  
  don't forget to take a crate of tip ex with you.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  What planet is he on?? No-one in their right mind would vote for someone who has such illusions of grandeur. He thinks he can single handedly save Dover from doom and gloom. Surely even he can see that no-one can have their fingers in all these different pies and make a go of anything, let alone our local councils. Before the last elections Keith advised him to save his money because he would lose his deposit and he was right. The best thing he can do is stick to his singing and let those who know what they're doing run the town.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  you may be right jaqui, but would elections be such fun?
  
  i remember him addressing "christians in dover".
  they had never heard such language before.
  
  they gave him a hair shirt on the way out.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  you may be right jaqui, but would elections be such fun?
  
  i remember him addressing "christians in dover".
  they had never heard such language before.
  
  they gave him a hair shirt on the way out.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Well, I'm thinking seriously of my recent meeting with Howard, and not wanting to sound to negative, but Barry's recent post cant just be left as it.
  On top of this Roger has given the impression hes not realy a politician, yet uses every opportunity to slag the labour party off.
  
  Lets look at a few of Barrys postings;
  
  Although the Human rights has its problems, it has done a lot of good for many an employee, so don't put it down altogether, we don't want to go back to the victorian days at the gates give us a job mate, those days need to be behind us.
  
  Immigration was no better under the tories than Labour, so lets not snipe at the govt , and lets also be careful in one way or another we are all immigrants.
  
  The party of Quango's was the last conservative govt, which allowed them to operate, and created many, and none were controlled, so don't preach to me about quango's. thats not to say Labour has got it riht cos they havn't but a debate about which ones may be useful would be a start.
  
  I;m afraid many local conseratives and National consrvatives support/lobbied for licensed gambling, so lets not blame 1 party.
  I'm no great fan of these places, but be fair in these arguments.
  
  GP'S wHILST this is correct, changes are required, if people are honest they will tell you how hard it is to get an appointment at present, and we will have to see if the govt's idea is the right one.
  
  Preaching to me aboiut the council tax!!! who was the party who brought this in?
  and it has got out of hand its a lot of money for poor services
  and getting out of peoples reach, needs a serious review
  
  I have no idea what these meanin less projects are, so cant comment on them, although i suspect i would disagree with barry on some .
  
  People decided on the UK break up
  
  
  The EU is here to stay, we can be part of it, or become very isolated.
  
  
  Many people have benefited from the tax credit system so I disagree with you it may be that it can run better, but think again about scrapping it.
  
  
  well thats not bad for a shot reply!!!!!!
  
  then lets move on to VIC
  
  I have always respected VIC as a person, he has a bundle of energy and if only we could capture that in a jar, and release it in a better way.
  I'm still interested to know If Barryw Roger, Nigel, Sue can answer if VIC will stand as a conservative in all these elections?
  
  But I will say again vic, I respect you have the enthusiasm but the electorate at the general(660 votes)
  priory second to last
  decided they had enough.
  I just feel that its time to move on VIC , you can still get involved in voluntary work, and use your energies there, but I'm just trying to save you and your family going through what you went through the last few elections, I recall how down you were after the last general election,
  Of course VIC its your call, I can only give you my humble advice
  
  keith
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Keith - it's not much that I take every opportunity to slag of the Labour Party/Government, but there is so much wrong with England now:
  
  Socially, NHS, crime, sentencing, personal finance, family, immigration - the very fabric of our Country is being eroded - all due directly to the Labour Government - after almost 11 years, we have no one else to blame.
  
  If it was a Conservative Government doing this to the Country, I would have resigned - long before now.
  
  I have not criticised any local Labour councillors at all and there is a world of different between national and local politics.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Thank you all for your comments, I like you all yes even you Jacqui if that is what you think say it well done.
  But I will keep going on, like I am.
  
  I remain yours faithfully Vic Matcham
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith....
  
  The Human Rights Act has to be the most ill-conceived piece of legislation ever passed through Parliament. It ignores the fact that rights cannot exist without responsibilities and therefore it has unbalanced the law toward 'rights' and in that way those who benefit most are the criminals and irresponsible. To suggest that we did not have rights before this legislation would be patently absurd.
  
  Immigration has become an issue of major public concern in recent years only because of the way Labour abandoned many immigration controls Conservatives had in 1997. I remember middle class socialists back in the days of Mrs. T. complaining about immigration controls and arguing for open borders, well they did it in 1997 and we now can see the result.
  
  Quangos is an interesting one. Certainly there was an increase in Conservative years, but since 1997 they have become a massive growth industry driven by Labour's attitude of interfering in every aspect of our lives and their love of new rules and regulation. They are out of control and desperately need pruning, we have long past the 'tipping point'.
  
  Your response over licencing is an interesting one. I believe there was room for some liberalising the laws but as so often you lot wnt too far.
  
  The Health Service is one of Labours great failures. They have simply pumped money into the system without reforming it and as a result so much of that cash has gone down the drain and is not reflected in results. Their targets and controls have hamstrung the Service and detracted from decisions made by the professional on a basis of clinical need.
  
  Labour have imposed more and more rules, requirements and regulations on Local Government without fully funding it forcing up Council tax.
  
  Tax Credits represent the economics of the madhouse. So over complex many people who qualify dont claim them so there is £1.2bn p.a. left unclaimed. Better to leave people with their own money in the first place and not tax them.
  
  The EU has been debated often on here. Too interfering, too prone to regulation, too soviet in its structure and intent. I expect it to go one day the same way as the Soviet Union. Time to get out of it now.
  
  Devolution is one thing but it was bodged and half baked. We beed to resolve the very real problems that it has created before we have a constitutional crisis.
  
  Do you know that only 35% of Government IT projects actually work... (That was in the Guardian incidentally) The vast expansion of the State under Labour makes this a serious issue. We need to reduce the role and power of the State in our every day lives.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. On the subject of Vic. It depends whether he applies to be a candidate and is selected. There is a process.
  
  He is perfectly at liberty to stand in his own right, not as a Conservative, as we all are. Personally I think he would just be throwing his money away but he might think the ego trip to be worth the cash... Thats up to him.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Barryw
  You won't be surprized that I disagree with you, just to pick up a few points,
  
  Local govt funding
  the conservatives when in govt were the worst funders of local govt, and by there style as good as admitted they had no time for local govt this was backed up by underfunding so dont get on that one. so it aint a labour thing!!!
  
  So has charlie been selected to stand for the Dover seat? or can even at this late stage vic challenge him?
  
  I have in a nice way tried to explain to VIC as to why I think he shouldn't stand and how best h could use his energies.
  But knowing VIC he's likely to still go for it, which Is a shame because he realy did get beat up last time round, and I still think VIC should stand back, look at himself and see what he is good at, and concentrate on that
  But Its down to VIC its his call.
  It Is an expensive ego trip if thats what it is, I'm being honest where looking at results VICS time has passed in the political arena, and I see no signs of that changing in any election, but as I say its Vic's call
  all i WILL say is VIC is tghink of the family.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Paul.
  Thank you for that and you right I will drop before I gave up.
  Anyway funding is in place now big cheque today by post from a Mr John Paul Airs I do not know him ,but will cash it on Monday.
  
  Vic
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. To hark back 11 year to attack a Conservative Government is not way to defend 11 years of Labour mismanagement. It was a different world back then and we have todays realities to deal with.
  
  Of course Charlie is Parliamentary candidate, I thought anyone with an ounce of sense would realise there is no opening in that respect and I was talking about Council seats. You, of course, are just being deliberately obtuse...
• keith, DOVER wrote:
  BAZ
  Keep yer hair on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  settles\that one on our Charlie, sorry VIC your on yer own!!!!!
  
  
  MY point on tories is they havn't changed, probably promise the world but know they aint realy going to change
  
  believe it or not BAZ people here don't trust em.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Vic..see the Forum Club section for the latest info on John Paul Airs.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  vic
  loved that one about the cheque from john paul airs.
  
  i have said this time and time again, on here and to your face.
  
  with your personality, you are wasting time and money not getting elected in politics.
  
  your talent with youth is incredible, do not waste it.
  we all have to learn what we are best at.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Barry,
  I think you're banging your head on a brick wall with certain people! They either don't or don't want to understand what you say. To my mind you make a lot of sense and I enjoy reading your posts. I don't profess to understand all the government does but you explain things in a way I understand. Please keep posting.
  Keith,
  I have to wonder if you argue with what everyone says most of the time just to get your name on here. I'm sure if Barry said Christmas was on 25th December this year you would say he was wrong!!
  VM,
  You can't say you like me because you don't know me so that is rubbish. When you come down from your planet to the real world maybe you will realise that what you are doing is ....... well stupid. If you have money to waste then for goodness sake spend it on your long suffering wife - she deserves treating well being married to you.
  Howard,
  Stop encouraging him - you make him worse and I think he believes your jokes too!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Jacqui
  I hink you need to make your mind up, first of all it was well barryw has a point of view but no one gives theres, now im giving mine, its well you just want to argue.
  
  That isn't it, Barryw(well not just barryw, nigel, roger, and sometimes sue)we are poles apart on many issues, thats politics, we have different beliefs now, if your saying you only want to hear one side(barryw)well thats interesting, all im saying is there are alternative views, which i presume from your posting yo don't want to read thats your choice.
  
  Im happy to leave it to the posters and if non conservaive posters dont want me to post in reply to barryw the im happy to sit back and watch the forum become a conservative forum, its not healthy for the forum, but im a very democratic person, and happy to hear views from posters, cant be fairer than that.
  
  
  All of that said, I have also said on many issues where Barryw and even more recently Roger I have very much the same views(benefits system being one) we probably would have differing ideas on how to resolve it, but we have very close ideas.
  
  There are some that would love me to disappear from posting of course so it can go back to he old conservative posters only, so it will be an interesting debate
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Keith,
  You know that's not what I'm saying, but don't look to me for support if I don't agree with you. On the issues about the play areas, as an ex councillor you must know that councillors are not allowed to give out some information, specially when it's in the discussion state. Maybe nothing has been finalised as to which areas are being closed, but you just keep on and on asking for details. I'm sure when a final decision has been made we will be told. These matters are not black and white, they are complicated - as you know. I think you actually have the details yourself from when you were a councillor but that's neither here nor there. Debate is healthy, I agree with you there. It's just that your attacks seem to be personal, attacking the man/woman rather than the policy. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't, when I don't I will say so - that is my right. The fact that I believe what Barry says is because of what he says, nothing to do with the man. The same goes for Nigel, Sue, Roger etc. The fact that they are conservative people has nothing to do with it - I just agree with what they say most of the time.
  So stop getting your tights in a tangle, this is not personal, as you seem to think, just my point of view, which as you are always saying - I am entitled to. ok?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Vic if you have a little digital camera or indeed a phone can you get a picture of yourself holding the John Paul Airs cheque over to me fairly fast, ie while its topical, and I can get it up on display on top of the page. Airs was featured negatively this week on both TV and in the newspapers.
  
  My email address is above.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  jACQUI
  your right in the debate bit, but it can't be on sided is what i'm saying,
  all Sue/Nigel or whoevr has to say is these play areas are under discussion and these play areas are to close
  
  Im unaware of any moves on the 25 play areas closing, thats why I feel people should know, not a personal attack, just information,
  It could be play area near posters on here, at the moment we don't have the list, so who knows.
  No good moaning on here when they are being dismantled
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  See on news today 2 dogs were shot today as they were running wild
  It is concerning the number of dogs these days running loose
  also the amount of times people just let dogs off in playing fields where children play, then they poop.
  
  when people walk there dogs why do some let them roam all over the path as iv walked past in rainy weather Iv had to take a step aside or the dog would have jumped up to me.
  
  
  Im an animal lover and have 2 dogs myself, but all dog owners should think of others as often they don't
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  
  i may be wrong but i think our victor was being ironic.
  
  i cannot imagine anyone daring to give a rubber cheque to him.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah yes Howard there was a possibility of irony, but as our Vic isnt given over much to irony, and while realising anything might be possible with Vic..I had to ask. We might even outscoop the tv should he have such a 'potential to rubberise' item about his person.Then some powerful publicity for our well meaning politically pugnacious paragon could ensue and do his political power aspirations a power of political good...phew!
  
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Paul,Howard.
  
  Sorry it was a joke about Mr John Paul Airs, but a good one.
  If it had not been I would have been looking for him myself.
  
  I as always remain yours faithfully Vic Matcham.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have often posted on military matters and in particular about the cronic underfunding of the Armed Services. Some people claim that the Tories were no better, that is simply untrue.
  
  There is an article in the Financial Times that makes it clear just how much worse things are for the Forces now compared to the last period of Conservative Government, the worse in fact for 30 years, since the last Labour Government....
  
  Here is an extract from the article that makes this point clear and the reasons why....
  
  """""""""""""""""‘
  By Stephen Fidler
  
  Published: April 28 2008
  
  Britain’s defence ministry faces its most severe funding crunch in three decades, leaving its strategy towards the industry in disarray and the armed forces stretched to the limit.
  
  According to people with close knowledge of the department, the crisis has come to a head after building up for more than a decade. Most declined to speak on the record because they are employed by the ministry or have regular business dealings with it....................
  
  ...............The ministry has been overwhelmed by the task of organising and equipping the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where 12,000 troops are in theatre and many more supporting them.
  
  The pressures have been increased by a budget that is, according to General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, the chief of defence materiel, tighter than at any time since the 1970s.
  
  The ministry has been forced to consider cancellation of big equipment projects, each of which has been viewed as essential by the armed forces or for the survival of important parts of the British defence industry. The room for manoeuvre has been restricted by Gordon Brown’s commitment to two big new aircraft carriers and a replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent...............
  
  .................A report out on Monday by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies shows that procurement spending from 2001 to 2006 was flat – at a time when defence equipment inflation was running at an annual 10 per cent.
  
  The military has received inadequate funding for the tasks set by the government for more than a decade, the people say. The tasks are still largely guided by the 1998 strategic defence review, which was underfunded by £1bn in year one, according to one estimate, and has never been funded adequately since, they say.
  """""""""""""""""""""""
  Well that certainly makes the case that I have been pushing for some time and from a newspaper that is usually sympathetic to Labour.
  
  I have no doubt about the importance and value of the two Aircraft Carriers but personally have doubts about the proposed Trident replacement as I believe that a cruise missile solution would be more flexible and more cost effective.
  
  The problem clearly is the level of funding. There must be a l;arge increase in Defence spending. The first duty of any Government is the Defence of the nation and that duty has been neglected by the present Government.
  
  I want to see some significant proposals David Cameron to resolve this problem. I know Liam Fox and other Conservative frontbenchers feel the same.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Do you remember the 1950's and the 1960's...all a soldier required then was a miserable looking brown uniform, a circular tin hat, and a long brown 303 rifle. Life was a prefab hut in a rural location, and if he got his three squares a day.. then he wasnt complaining.
  
  In those days nobody spoke out about their lack of equipment. You had your essentials and that was that. Besides to speak out might have brought some dire retaliatory consequences into play. Not so now. Today everybody talks to the media. If a guy doesnt like the taps in the nissan hut kitchen he calls ITN.
  
  It is very hard to gauge who is right in the equipment argument. When you bear in mind that the cost of equiping a high tech army has soared into the stratosphere, there will always have to be a cut off point. At what point is the right cut off point.
  
  Looking into the future this is clearly going to be an ongoing political sore, an easy target, a political football, as no matter how much is spent by any government of the day the other side will exploit it and scream ' shortfall'. The reality is you cannot just spend spend spend on the miliatary without some poor old lady in a wheelchair somewhere having her services cut. One has to be balanced with the other, as quite clearly we all do not want to pay ever more taxes. The ordinary citizen has his own sorry lot to worry about right now, with rising food bills, rising energy bills, and the grisly sound of the repossessors knocking on the door.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You exagerate about the 1950's and 1960's. They still needed good radio equipment, up-to-date artillery and tanks. The Navy still needed modern frigates and submarines, and yes, aircraft carriers as well along with the modern planes also. Even in the 1940's good equipment was essential, remember the radios that did not work at Arnhem, just to illustrate the point.
  
  Times move on and to have effective armed forces with the ability to deliver they need to be high tech. We must maintain the technological advantage over any potential aggresssor along with the flexibility to respond to crises.
  
  Yes there should not be an open chequebook for Defence and I would not want that, but you must spend the right amount and make sure that your Forces can deliver on the missions that you impose on them. This is what the Labour Government has failed miserably to do.
  
  They have found and wasted £billions to little result. They can always find the money for 'pet' schemes and for more spin doctors. They can always find the dosh to fulfill their 'politically correct' agenda, but the Armed Forces get starved of cash.
  
  We are talking here about a Government deliberately underfunding those who it sends into harms way to do its dirty work. They death of many teenagers serving in our Army is the result.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  defence spending is always a sore point, like spending on the NHS.
  
  there are people that want us to take military action against mr mugabe and his chums in zimbabwe.
  where would we get the necessary troops and equipment from?
  we sent 600 troops to kosobo only yesterday and i believe that we are also involved in a military capacity in afghanistan and iraq.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry
  May I remind you of a certain John Knott who in a White Paper proposed severe cuts in the defence budget with the Royal Navy bearing the brunt. The cuts were approved by a little known Prime Minister known as Margaret Thatcher who at that time wanted the Defence Budget cut. In 1982 the Falklands conflict broke out and a Task Force was despatched to the Falklands. The Ark Royal which had been de-commissioned in 1978 was hastily brought back into service and various Naval ships that had laid idle for months due to no fuel or lacking vital parts were patched up and returned to active service.
  The poorly equipped seaman were issued with nylon suits which proved to be totally useless in a fire. The suits melted and stuck to the body causing the most horrific burns.
  The radar system was not-up-to-date as it was unable to penetrate the terrain and low flying enemy aircraft.
  Had it not been for the fact that the Argentine Airforce was fighting at the limit of its range and was therefore unable to circle an intended target the whole of the Falklands conflict might have been much more serious.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - yes the Forces are stretched and do not have the resources to do what is expected of them now, so dealing with Zimbabwe is pie in the sky.
  
  Dave. First of all the Ark Royal that was laid off in 1978 was not dispatched to the Falklands, Labour had scrapped her. The two carriers in the Task Force were the Hermes and Invinclible, the latter being the first of the 'mini' carriers that we have today. The present Ark Royal is the third ship of the class. Please get your facts right. You are also overstating the problems, but problems there certainly were and this largely proves the point I made a bout the need for balanced forces.
  
  The Navy was configured for operation under NATO in the event of war with the Warsaw Pact and was tasked with keeping the Atlantic re-supply open in a battle against submarines. It was as a result ill-equipped to be tasked for an operation like the Falklands.
  
  This was, remember, also only in early 1982, just 3 years after Mrs T won the election. The Navy was still recovering from neglect under the Labour Government (the '3 decades ago' of my previous thread identified as the last time when the Forces were in such a bad state). As I say it takes a lot of years to bring forward new equipment and Mrs T immediately after the election increased military spending by 3% above inflation per annum.
  
  You are right in one thing though. John Nottt did propose some cutbacks to focus ever more tightly on the North Atlantic role, he was wrong in that, as proven by events. His proposals never did proceed, they were only proposals.
  
  You cannot cover up the failures of all Labour Governments over Defence. The Financial Times makes it clear just how bad it is and how the last time things were this bad was under Labour in the 1970's. Indeed the only reason we had the Invincible at the time of the Falklands was because of a clever bit of work by the MoD when she was being designed and built, they called the ship a 'through deck cruiser' because if they called her an aircraft carrier, the Labour Government would have cancelled her.
  
  As I have said before the Conservatives have not always been perfect on Defence but at least there is more understanding of the issues as we do have many ex-Forces MPs and senior Frontbenchers, (unlike Labour) and we do not have an idiotic pacificst lobby the way Labour has.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I accept that what you say about the Ark Royal is correct but after 26 years the memory can become a little blighted, however I am glad that you agree that their were failings. To the credit of the Conservatives they recognised those failings and did to a large extent put them right.
  Incidentally I have no allegiance to any political party and feel free to criticise them should I disagree with a particular policy.
  I think Cameron could offer this Country a younger more dynamic government that is more in touch and understanding toward the younger electorate as opposed to old fogies like me who have a wealth of experience behind us but little in front.
  I should also like to see younger Councillors well within their 'sell by dates' as opposed to a few that just don't know when to call it a day.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, what may of confused you was that an old carrier was examined to see if it could be made ready to provide a third platform for Harriers. It was the old Bulwark, a small carrier that had been placed in mothballs several years previously, and had spent her final years as a helicopter support ship for the Marines.
  
  They decided it wasnt viable and better to accellerate finishing Illustrious instead. Illustrious was not finished in time to play an active role in the war, but was sent to the Falklands and relieved Invicible in the immediate aftermath.
• Jim, Dover wrote:
  On Howard's points, I agree that we need to go into Zimbabwe and kick out Mugabe. Perhaps the way to do it is to bring back National Service. A lot of today's youth could certainly do with it! It might also bring about more parental responsibility. One big problem is that many of today's kids come from broken homes and disfunctional families with no guidance or direction and National Service could give them a sense of identity and responsibility.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Jim. I see where you are coming from and sympathise with the point that you make. That said a modern technological battlefield is the place for a professional soldier and no place for conscripts.
  
  We do certainly need to expand the Army by restoring the 4 infantry batallions that were cut a few years ago, with proper funding. That is just what is needed to fulfil properly the present commitments.
  
  I agree that a form of military (1950's) style training would benefit all school leavers, particularly boys, in the way you say. I would have every child do 3 months of this at the end of their schooling. Run by ex Army NCO's who job is to instill a sense of discipline, responsibility and provide all those things that many families these days lack, including a 'father figure' role model. The training should include all the facets that were included in the training of conscripts, including drill and arms training.
  
  It would work wonders, even a short period of 3 months would build character and provide a sense of self-worth and achievment with a likely by-product of getting some of the graduats to join the professional Forces.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry
  I agree with you yet again, I'll be voting Conservative at this rate.
  
  Seriously though don't the Chinese put the older students through a period of military training prior to them leaving school?
• Jim, Dover wrote:
  Glad to see some of you agree with my approach. National Service is still common in EU countries like Germany, Italy and others. It does seem a possible answer to some of our ills.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ;
  Just a small reply, isn't that like what you oppose(bg brother)making people do things(sign up)
  
  That said I didn't serve in any of the forces, but i'm fairly disiplined
  so it doesnt have to be a YOU HAVE TO aproach.
  
  Whilst the young that do wrong will always get into the media, there are many young that I meet every day that are doing good and far out number those that fall off the end.
  
  So BAZ I think you need a rethink, get yourself around, talk to the youth
  who go to triangles awards each year
  talk to Mandies organisation
  talk to those in cadets, scouts, cubs, girl guides, plus many mNY MORE good organisations.
  
  What do the rest of you think, should we sign all the young up for 3 months just because a minority are bad apples I dont think so do you?
• Guest 643 wrote:
  I've been saying this for a long time, bring back a form of National Service. As Barry says it would give the kids a darn good basis for everyday life after education finishes. I don't look on it as a punishment, I look on it as character building, giving kids a sense of worth and teaching them the everyday respect and guidelines that make a man. My late husband did national service in the last year before it was scrapped and he always said it should have stayed. Discipline doesn't come naturally, it needs to be taught and with it comes a sense of pride which is so lacking in some of todays kids.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Hi JAcqui
  Think your missing my point, its a MINORITY of youth who misbehave, so why should the MAJORITY suffer because of it?
  
  Maybe more should be done to find out why the MINORITY misbehave
  have some Ideas as to why, but whats more important is, as I;v shown on 2 seperate postings, theres a lot of good work being done by the youth and we shouldn't label everyone because of a minority.
  
  
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Hi Keith,
  
  I think it's you who are missing my point.
  I did say I don't see a form of national service as a punishment at all, anymore than it was one before, just that this form of things would give kids a sense of self worth that they might not otherwise have. I'm not talking about boot camps, just a form of military like training which would be character building too. They would probably enjoy it actually, look how a lot of them enjoy outward bound courses. Please don't assume that everything I say is to argue with you - we are all entitled to a view.
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  I can only speak for the 49 young ladies and gentlemen who have come DCAL's way since 2004.
  
  When these youngsters have come on board as court members, many of them have not been involved and have come from a wide range of backgrounds.
  
  For me the real problem with the adult/child relationship, is that very often kids are spoken down to by adults, told what to do as opposed to guiding them to do stuff.
  
  Unless you come down to the level of some of these kids they are bound to rebel, creating a them and us society, where they don't trust adults, and don't, or won't listen.
  
  Until we re-dress that, we will always have a problem. I am sure there will still be a minority that just will not comply, but let's not put all kids into the same group.
  
  Has, has been said already there are many, many good kids, and many good organisations the kids can be involved with.
  
  Many years ago I was in a marching band. It was a very deprived area, but the kids learnt to have pride, because an adult believed in them and encouraged them, and nurtured them well enough to make them believe anything was possible.
  This is what we need to do more of as adults. Every child is an open book, all you have to do is fill that book with enough positive influence that makes them take pride in stuff. It doesn't have to be a parent that does it.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith, you posted.............
  
  "so why should the MAJORITY suffer because of it?"
  
  This was in relation to my suggestion that all youngsters at the end of their schooling should do 3 months military style training as a form of National Service.
  
  Does this perhaps reveal your true feeling towards the military? It certainly seems to me typical of a Labour/left wing attitude to the Forces.
  
  Jacquie is right. This is not a punishment. It is character building and would benefit all of them. Those that would benefit most would indeed be those who might end up turning to petty crime and anti social behaviour. It could turn their lives around. I have 3 sons and I would love all of them to take such an opportunity. The oldest left school, is working and is certainly a good responsible lad but he would not have done this kind of thing woithout it being compulsory. He would have benefitted greatly from it, I am certain. Middle son is a sergeant in the Grammar CCF so he get at least a bit of this and is much the better for it. He plans to join the RAF as aircrew. I would love my youngest son the have an opportunity such as I would like to see.....
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  would you be so kind to explain what you mean by the labour attitude to the military.
  
  the present labour administration has started more wars than any other government in my memory.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Correct Howard. Starting more wars doesnt mean they are pro-military, far from it.
  
  They are underfunding and abusing the military having failed to provide the resources needed. Refer to the previous posts for more detail.
  
  I point out again that Labour have a powerful pacifist lobby to contend with and that hampers a common sense attitude to defence.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  By the time you read this the result is likely to be known but just arrived back and checked emails and such like and 'those in the know' are calling a Boris victory already.
  
  Apparently there is a high (for local elections) turnout, particularly in Conservative strongholds. Conservative activists have had thumbs up in the streets from cabbies, always a good sign!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ; JACQUI
  
  Well its a good debate, but I cant agree(of course)
  the MAJORITY of youngsters do a good job in the District so why should we
  force a form of national service on them????
  
  Now if we were to say the MINORITY may ned to be looked at in thi direction then maybe there would be some support.
  
  It has nothing to do with lefty views(which i have many, and proud to be so) but its about being fair to all the hard working youth of today, why must they be pushed down BAZ's road when they have nowt wrong. and conform to society, in other walks of life baz would be screaming about the interferring nanny state, make your mind up BAZ
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I would certainly support a temporary period of compulsory discipline (call it National Service if you like) for some young people, and an opportunity for some to take part voluntarily too, but I am not sure why we should expect all young people to benefit from it. That's a bit like saying we would all benefit from being forced to learn the piano, or to climb mountains - it would benefit some and not others and may be an unnecessarily painful experience for some. But most certainly there are many directionless young people who would clearly benefit from the guidance and purpose offered by military style training, and perhaps mentors, offocials and teachers could assist in identifying them before they come to the courts.......it could be a positive thing rather than a punishment handed down by The Law!
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  And yes, let's hear it for the lovely youngsters!! All my children are teenage and their friends are charming people. Older peoples fear of a minority of challenging youngsters can cloud our judgement about the sometimes misunderstood but lovely young people we have around us.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BERN
  Thank you Bern, thought I was talking to myself for while!!!!!!!
  
  yes, some youngsters could benefit, but as I keep saying(and at last someone recognises) the MAJORITY of youth are great for the area, and don't misbehave
  
  
  thankyou Bern
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Cor got here before BAZ!!
  
  well what a shocker for Labour last night, not unexpected as paulb has stated above, think DC did well to play down the results and concentrate on the bigger picture.
  
  Its now up to GB to get people back on track, and show labour as the true party of the people.
  
  What is good is that the conservatives will at long last come under scrutiny and probably found wanting, but thats time to tell.
  
  London election for mayor is looking to be interesting
  Lib Dems given up already, Ken wants to cling on
  Maverick Boris(obviously told to hold his tongue during this campaign)
  has a chance of winning.
  will be an interesting result, but we have to wait till gone tea time for that.
  
  Of course people don't vote the same way at local and national elections so GB has time to re group
  
  Thatr Hastings result went to wire, with the opening of envelope deciding the fate.
  Some of us recall the same at Dover town hall when our own labour candidate Viv revell tied in numbers with indy P Verrill
  and they picked a name out of a hat and sadly viv lost, but im sure viv is already out there campaigning to get that BORROWED seat back at the nEXt town council elections.
  
  I love the count now(cos like BAZ i can sit back and lt others do the worrying~)
  
  interesting times ahead me thinks
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I fear for the Labour situation. It is hard now to see it as being recoverable. A thoroughly awful and ramshackle performance by Gordon Brown from day one has left his party reeling right across the nation and looking totally bewildered as an outfit. Harriet Harman said the local elections were "very disappointing" which just about sums up the mood for the average Labour supporter.
  
  The Tories on the other hand are buoyant. Not only soaring in the opinion polls but now romping home in the polls that count...the ones that you and I take part in.
  
  When the Dover Express first started publishing opinion polls that said Gwyn Prosser could lose locally, I dismissed it as being nigh on impossible, despite the polls and projections. But now it's not quite so impossible.
  
  The tax situation is the killer. Families are beleagured right across the board and feeling very very overtaxed. Whether in actual terms they are or not its hard to say, but thats the way the people feel. They are sick of taxes..another bummer is the excuse of the green tax rearing its ugly head on everything. Taxing people more to encourage them to use their cars less for example is ugly. We know we have a planet crises problem but ever more taxes will just cripple everyone's ability to go about their daily business, their daily lives. So people wont vote for the party that forces them into this horrible boat. Being green is one thing but being dirt poor to pay for being green is something else.
  
  Who was it that said..the inevitablility of death and taxes. Well it seems thats all we have left...death and taxes!
  
  As some Labour wag said last week and how right he was..."Gordon Brown was put on this planet to remind us how good Tony Blair was!"
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Actually Keefy I did post before 11pm last night that I received emails and )after posting) find that conservativehome.com are calling the election a win for Boris. We will know later but things are looking good.
  
  I welcome that Conservative policies will come under scutiny. Policies placed before the last election were subject to a 'blind' polling that found overwhelming support for Conservatives. Then when the Conservative and labour labels were added to the policy programmes the position was reversed to reflect the actual election result.
  
  That is why it is important for us. We will now have people listening to what we say and with the brand de-contaminated by DC we are on election winning course.
  
  These result simply cannot have been much worse for Labour, their worse for over 40 years, worse even than under Michael Foot, and we are projected to be back at 44% of the vote when all results are in.
  
  PaulB - I have told you before that Dover swings with the country so I really cannot why you thought what you did about the local polling.
  
  I have said it before Prosser has been a very poor low grade MP and even this morning Alison was told by someone in Canterbury (a Dover resident) that Prosser had ignored a letter from her. That was at a business meeting, we dont know this lady well and did not associate Alison/me with the Conservatives. We hear that often about Prosser but never heard it about Peter Rees or David Shaw....
  
• KEITH, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Sorry, yes I missed your posting of 2250 Last night,
  No one can deny Labours showing at these elections was poor, Im the first to admit It.
  
  I don't agree on the Gwyn thoughts,
  This thing about Gwyn not replying I have often heard this but upon checking usually find;
  
  A; The person gets a reply, but not the answer they may have wanted
  B; The letter was never received
  C; Replies were sent.
  
  Please don't get me going on David Shaw(there was a waste of space
  not interested In Dover, and soon scarpered when he lost seat)
  
  Paulb, hold the faith brother!! I know these times are difficult, but as a Labour party GB needs to regroup/refocus, and he can do that, and will be put under pressure I'm sure to do so.
  
  WhIlst in Wales I came across some canvassers for the Indy this was in strong Labour heartland where in past years labour had big majorities, but sat back and allowed these majorities to reduce rather than build on them, and we saw a surge of indies come along and nearly take control, im looking at BBC to see if LLANELLI held there labour candidates not yet announced.
  
  These elections also show how easy seats can change, but also candidates can hold seats by working all the year round rather than just turning up in the 4 weeks leading up to the election.
  
  Sue has shown this as an active Lib DEM in River, then switching parties to the Conservatives, her vote went up, and im sure that was a personal vote.
  
  So i'm down in the dumps and looking now for that result tonight to hopefully see Ken returned to give a glimmer of hope for the future, and the start of rebuilding for the next general election
  Come on Gordon, its in your hands
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith.
  
  To quote you """This thing about Gwyn not replying I have often heard this but upon checking usually find;
  
  A; The person gets a reply, but not the answer they may have wanted
  B; The letter was never received
  C; Replies were sent.
  
  Please don't get me going on David Shaw(there was a waste of space
  not interested In Dover, and soon scarpered when he lost seat)"""""
  
  So this happens a lot to Gwyn does it? You admit it. So where is the common denominator, why its GP himself, well I never. At least he has three excuses ready, what does he do then, use a pin for which one to use at a particular time?
  
  As for your David Shaw comments. I have corrected you on this several times by informing you of the continued contact he has with many of us in Dover, his continued interest and the Charity he set up that still benefits local schools. He paid (pays) all his tv appearance fees into it.
  
  He was defeated in the election and had to resume a career outside politics so it is hardly surprising that he would move back to London where his employment is. David Ennals did the same and so did Peter Rees, it is pretty much the norm for defeated MPs.
  
  You would have more credability if you acknowledged this and stopped misrepresenting the facts about him.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I hear a bookies has already started paying out on bets placed on Boris to win and they have not even finished counting the first round yet!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  
  the first politician to my knowledge that used the term green tax to extort money from the electorate, was kennneth clarke when he was clue chancellor.
  he whacked a lot on fuel and road tax.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  i am not sure what to think about boris as mayor.
  
  he is a great raconteur and always entertaining, i shudder to think what he will do to london.
  he appears not to know what powers the mayor actually has.
  
  labour will be happy with his election, as he will improve their ratings and possible vote in the lead up to the next election.
  
  keith
  it will be interesting tp see how the blues perform now that they are seen as a government in waiting.
  
  much easier to be in opposition.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry
  I'm surprised at your complete lack of feeling, poor old Gwynn is 65 so you could forgive him for not answering all his post. If this Government goes the full term he will be 67 facing unemployment if he doesn't get re-elected.
  Time to go Gwynn and leave Dover to a younger person, perhaps better still put up as a Councillor you will feel at home with some of the old fossils that represent this town.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  he does not look bad for his age though dave
  
  i do not subscribe to the rumour that he puts boot polish on his hair
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  MISREPRESENT YOU?
  And you say Iv have admitted gwyn does answer letters on regular basis and totaly misrepresent me in your posting.
  
  As for Gwyn Iv said before Gwyn won previous elections because the conservative/lib dem/indies etc were of poor quality.
  
  do believe as Iv said before that Charlie boy will give Gwyn a run for his money. It will be a close call, but from past experience the Labour machine is very good in these times, and im sure its already geared up for that day.
  
  Its very worrying listening to a shadow cabinet member(osbourne?)say he will if he get into govt make it nearly impossible for anyone to strike.
  so be warned, we are going back to those maggie hating the unions days,
  
  Lets hope people have a long memory and don't drag us back to those dreary days.
• keith, dover wrote:
  Well theres a shocker, Boris wins in London.
  good luck to him and the londoners for the future.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So Keith, George said that did he? Good. The Unions are and always have been a menace to the prosperity of the country and their members. They have been given back much too much power over the last 11 years.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Ay he did, believe me BAZ your not correct on that one, T blair /GB did little moe than maggs on getting into office , Its worrying that we could be heading back to those victorian dreary days.
  
  Trade unions have a role to play but needs to be able to do so on a level playing field, Any working class people out there should be aware of those comments for the future, and clearly its going to be a hard time for trade unions in the future.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well I never!!! I wake up to find that Boris Johnson, as Keith said, has won in London. Well I dont know. The electorate must be really fed up with Labour if the clowning bumbling Boris wins the Mayor's position. His reputation for buffoonery is legend, everyone loves him but in much the same way as everyone loves a clown.
  
  But would you, could you, trust this guy for example with your family savings?? I am not for a minute saying he is anyway crooked at all at all, but he just looks incompetant to me and would be sure to lose your family savings. How can he be a Mayor therefore, is my thinking. Thats the way he comes across to me anyway even tho like everyone else I like him.
  
  Jeezez times must be bad. It shows though, I would suggest, that people are voting more against Labour rather than for the Tories.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  Whilst your commens are correct, theres another very worrying trend
  in Dagenham the BNP HAD A cllr elected and on top of that they had a person? elected to the london assembley.
  by getting 5% of the vote they got one in.
  Thats bad for politics
  bad for London
  bad for everyone
  We did see once in Dover the BNP stand in the Tor hamlets ward and gain 160 votes, which shows people are willing to vote that way, but also shows that people are switching off main stream parties.
  
  In general Its clear GB has 6 months to re group, make a name for himself, and like maggie looked after her own, GB will need to show he stands for the working class, because they have no chance otherwise.
  
  There is no doubt Labour is at present being voted against as a Govt so its on GB to turn this around.
  
  Its in his hands.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are calling for a core vote strategy then Keith.... Good for you, go for it and I sincerely hope you succeed. That should confirm you with a vote of 24% to 29% at the next General Election.
  
  PaulB. Boris communicates with a self depreciating humerous style but that does not mean he is a buffoon. Dont believe all Labour's electoral spin.
  
  Boris was a clear 6% ahead of Red Ken so it was not a narrow win.
  
  He is actually a very clever man and his victory is good for London, good for the Conservatives and good for Britain.
  
  Here are the results of the Council elections (from PoliticsHome)
  The numbers left to right represent: net seat gains: Councils Won: Councils Gained: Councils Lost: Net Gained
  
  Conservative +300 65 14 3 +11
  
  Labour - 434 18 2 11 -9
  
  Lib Dem +33 12 3 3 0
  
  NoC +101 64 14 16 -2
  
  The share of the vote (BBC) Conservative 44%, Labour 24% LibDems 25%
  
  The scale of this victory is massive. The fact that there was such a large Lab/Con swing added to the fact that the LibDem share of the vote fell from 27% in 2004 despite ba small increase in vote indicates that this was more than a protest vote. If it was just a protest vote you would have expected more votes to go to the LibDems and 'Others'. No this was a 'pro-Conservative vote.
  
  It will be very difficult for Labour to recover from this. I am not saying it is impossible but such a recovery would be unprecedented. Tere are always mid-term lows but in this case the 'gap' of 20% between Conservative and Labour compares to 11% as the largest such gap from which a Government has previously recovered.
  
  I have been saying for some time that a tippinbg point has turned and this confirms it.
  
  The contrast between Brown and Cameron yesterday on tv was telling. Cameron looked like a man on his way while Brown look tired, very much the loser on his way out, lets face it he couldnt even make sure his tie was straight for the interview!
  
  Some Labour figure are giving him until the Conference to sort himself out. That indicates Labour are set for division and rancor, a certain way to defeat.
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I would absolutely agree that these results show a change in the tide. Labour have failed to deliver on so levels and Mr. Brown is certainly not weathering well. DC has a better media presence, much more like Tony Blair, and unfortunately this does seem to influence our view. I recently laughed out loud at GB’s ridiculous appearance on ‘American Idol’ although I suspect DC and or Tony would have just as happily sold their soul to the American mass media!
  
  I do think Barry is right that the Conservative are on their way back in and with the poor choices of this government and Tony if anything continuing the work of Margaret Thatcher better than John Major, we really haven’t got what it said on the Mandelson tin.
  
  As for Boris, he is undoubtedly a clever man in certain capacities, this however does not compensate for the fact that he is diplomatically inept, and just a bit of an ass. At a time when London is fast developing and preparing for a cultural celebration in the form of the Olympics, I don’t think this imperialistic, traditionalist is the man for the job. He has about as much understanding of progress and diversity as Prince Philip and I think if anything this vote just highlights the disillusionment that has been created in recent years. Having read the Spectator, one would suspect that editorship believed that this country peaked around 1900.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yup DT, Boris is a goody and wonderfully non-pc. That is what we need, time to end all that pc crap and get back to a bit of straight talking honesty. Al the things for which you critisise him are things that I fully and wholeheartedly approve.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  i'M SURE im misunderstanding your comments???
  DT says that Boris is not up to the job, and your reply was, yes thats correct and I agree with all his comments?
  
  I'V said before thursdays results were a disaster for ;Labour and Britain and of course DC would look good he doesn't have much to lose
  
  on the wider front GB has to regroup if he wants to remain in Govt and i' sure he will.
  
  Interesting that in all the results labour did well in london assembley
  strange how people vote.
  
  Obviously like Baz I have a completely biased view, and as I said before like many others I can't afford the conservatives back in, Iv lived like others through those dreary days and Maggie like other conservative leaders attempted to destroy local govt and the working class
  I don't want those days back, nor do many others.
  
  This is a blip, Labour is already licking its wounds and re grouping
  
  There is no doubt GB has a hill to climbe but he can do it and i'm sure he will.
  
  OVER TO YOU GB .
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I suggest that you re-read what DT and I said.
  
  What DT considers to be his failings are exactly the qualities that I admire. They are not 'NuLab PC' and that is good enough for me. The London election was galvanised by the pesonalities of the candidates and the turnout as a result was 45% compared to 37% last time and that has to be good for democracy. If both candidates were pc clones then there would not have been the same turnout. We are seeing the triumph of good plain speaking and to hell with falling in with the left driven politically correct agenda.
  
  There is no crumb of comfort for you in the results. You do get the odd anomaly within results, Libdems for instance try to keep their spirits up by focusing of their gaining Sheffield, ignoring that it was only obtained because of an independent joining them and, of course, they ignore the balancing loss of another Council.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  "Boris has the Last Laugh" screams the frontpage headline on todays Daily Mail
  ...I guesss they're right!
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Blimey! That's a turn-up for the books, bumbling Boris the New Lord Mayor of London! I don't think it's a blip, 6% majority with a record 46% turn-out! I only hope that he is the right man for the job, personnaly I don't think so. Ken (who went to my old school) with a proven track-record is the right man for the job, but with Brown as leader of the Labour party, had him at a disadvantage from the very start. Also Ken has been in that position as we know for years and maybe it was time for a change, but Boris? Only time will tell.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Barry Williams,
  There is so much I want to say on this subject but we all know that if I agree with you I will be accused by a certain person of hanging on your every word and seeing no wrong it wharever you say ( as has happened many times).
  So I will just say that I agree with you 100% and I am happy!
  Now what is the catchword? Oh yes - let's wait and see lol.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  OOps! A typo - I meant whatever not wharever! Sorry!
• DT, Dover wrote:
  The Daily Mail readers will love Boris being Mayor, I’m sure they will use many of his mindless remarks to perpetuate middle England’s purity. He could fill another few pages, in between their usual shock health story, an article on HRT and fashion advice on how to dress like Princess Anne.
  
  I personally don’t subscribe to Political Correctness, especially to the extent pedaled by the likes of the Daily Mail. (PC that borders on paradoxical) There is however a very definite line between Political Incorrectness and outright bigotry. It is this blatant intolerance of anything alien that is a weakness not strength. It’s interesting that people like Boris and Phillip look backwards to address present problems, to a time when things where ‘better.’ Ironically the times that they look to where the result of our ability to change and adapt, a characteristic that made our nation great. History and tradition are vitally important, but if history tells us one thing, it is that the inability to evolve leads to the demise of cultures and civilizations. I want the leadership of this country to understand the past and look forward, not just look back Boris.
  
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  I didn't realise Boris dressed like Princess Anne......any more shockers ahead...?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Jacqui
  You have a right to agree with BAZ if thats your wish, and giving your opinions of course you should.
  
  I do disagree with BAZ because we are poles apart in politics but wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same?
  
  On the elections TB years ago concentrated on middle England and forgot his roots(if he ever had any) an whilst it got the labour party elected it forgot what it stood for.
  
  At times the conservatives/Labour were sounding the same(even though they were far from it)
  
  All I WILL say Jacqui is BAZ and I come from very differet political backgrounds, we will rarely agree, but hey so what, does it matter?, no is healthy, wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same.
  
  
  On thursdays results, labour had a dismal election both for mayor and local govt(apart from london assembley)
  and I have in an earlier posting said just that.
  
  Ken suffered from his past and at times strange things he got up, but Boris will have problems to as he doesn't convince the wider audience.
  but his time will come.
  
  I wouldn't say I wish the conservatives well, cos I ouldnt wish them on anyone.
  but they did do well thursday, and now GB will as I say have to re group and get the labour party back to a position where it was, because thats what they deserve, and the workng class deserve nothing less
  GORDON its on you boyo
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I am surprised at you Barry W-S, I would not have thought you would approve of that odius nasty little man Red Ken.
  
  Boris will prove himself, make no mistake, he will get some good people around him and in 8 years time, at the end of his two terms get all misty eyed because he decides to stand down because of his pledge to do no more than 2 terms.
  
  I remember how people reacted to Arnie as Governor of California and Ronny Reagan as US President...... Two very good and capable politicians and probably all the better for not being in the standard politico mould.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Keith - Blairs roots were firmly planted in the "Me" compost. As far as I can see he took aim at a Party that needed some charisma, delivered that and took power as a result. I cannot see anything that indicates a firm and true committment to what used to be called the Working Classes or anything resembling the origins of the Labour Party. He changed the direction, the name, and the reputation of the Party. It is not for me to say if that was all for the better, but it is for me to say that it does not represent me.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Odious. Cuddly Ken? He's a lovely man, even though he may have got one or two Londoners hackles raised, once when I was on jury service a mother of a really odious nasty piece of work was being led down to the cells, was heard to call out 'He's a good boy really' lol!
  
  Only time will tell, let us wait and see, proof is in the pudding.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Boris probably won't survive 4 years let alone once he starts to get the pressure put on him, and he will stumble from mistake to mistake
  Whilst he maY be viewed a a free thinker the party has already been moulded and wont be allowed to free thinking
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  maybe we should have elections for mayor here in dover.
  
  ken tranter to play the part of boris, diane smallwood to play the part of ken.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  just a point of protocol here, "baz" is posh barry.
  
  barry w, although rolling in dosh, does not have any aristocratic ancestry
  to my knowledge.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Rolling in dosh, howard - I wish.
  
  Keith if you check I think you will find that Conservatives have increased our representation on the London Assembly so I'm afraid there is no solace there for you.
  
  Interesting, we lost a seat but because of an increase in our total share of the vote we get extra seats! Weird PR systems and, despite it working in our favour thos time, we really should just stick to first past the post.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  I have no Idea of Baz background/fnancial state so could't possibly comment
  
  BAZ;
  Via the PR system the BNP was elected to. so there are concerns.
  and whilst the conservatives did well on london assembley so did Labour
  which was my point.
  
  General
  glad that GB is calling in the labour troops to re focus its desperatly needed
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Aristocratic ancestry? Let them eat cake!!!!
  
  I'll miss Cuddly Ken, now he is a 'class' act to follow, lol! Just orf to bag a few peasants as the hounds need the exercise since fox hunting was made illegal, damn shame if you ask me.
• Tony, Dover wrote:
  It will be more than interesting to see how Boris's views on issues such as climate change and those of his paymaster Mr. Cameron will change over the next few months. Watch carefully as Boris embraces (back pedals) on this issue after a quiet word from David Cameron. When he does your'll see real politics in action. This will be amongst the first issues to be at first watered down and then reversed. I prefer Boris to Ken Livingstone any day of the week but once the "advisors" do their work we will see a very different Boris to the one we have been used to as portrayed by the media and his PR team who managed to get him elected.
• Tony, Dover. wrote:
  Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I spoke too late. I've been looking at his campaign in terms of his environmental policies prior to the election and I'm horrified to see that the rot must have set in quite early on in his campaign. I watched a video where he said that he wants to reduce Londons CO2 output and in a mission statement he says and I quote, "I will continue to work in association with other cities across the world to tackle climate change".
  Well that's it then they elected the wrong bloke after all. As in the words of the song, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" rings true now as it did when The Who sang it so many years ago. Damn, just as I naively thought that things were really going to change.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Nice to see GB starting the fight back yesterday
  could be an interesting 2 years
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef I think you are putting too much of a rosy spin on Gordon Brown's ability to fight back. Tony Blair was in government for years and years and never got a kicking like that at the polls. Gordon Brown is in power just 5 minutes and the whole Labour scene has gone straight to hell. The results were unbelievably bad. The man is a liability at the polls.
  
  The feeling is that Gordon does not have the basic leadership charisma to take the nation with him. You have to beleive in the guy leading and you have to WANT to follow him.
  
  Gordon's dire days will of course also affect Gwyn Prosser's chance of re-lection too...so the effect has been catastrophic right across the nation and will be felt even here in Dover.
  
  In Gwyn Prosser's excellent column in the Dover EXpress he is endeavouring to distance himself from the tax fiasco, and quite right too. Gwyn's column was written before the election disaster, the headline from his column says
  
  "I didnt join the Labour Party to support Higher Taxes for lower earners!"
  
  and that sums up how badly many backbenchers are feeling, they have been electorialy scuppered by the leadership. Its a clear indication that Gordon's few months in the job have gone terribly wrong.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  just trying to keep the upper cheek, and hope that GB can regroup and put the Labour party back on track.
  I'm afraid we have to much lose as the alternatives are dire.
  
  There's no spin, I'm hopeful that GB can start a fightback, the country needs it.
  
  The joke that any leadership election will do anything for the party needs to be put back on the shelf.
  
  Mr O donnel who's leading a rebellion wants the party to go back to the unelectable days, which no one wants.
  
  I'm happy to give GB time to re group
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  What is interesting is to read media comments on Brown's interviews.
  
  'Brown bores on' is one comment I read from a source that tends to be a bit more sympathetic to Labour. He certainly did drone on and if anything this media exposure showed why he is simply hopeless as a leader.
  
  He can start yet another fight back, he can reverse many policies and try to sharpen up and be more populist, but has he really got it in him? Surely if he had the right touch he would not be in this situation now and there is no-way he can suddenly change and all mof a sudden get things right. It does not work that way.
  
  There are some serious character flaws that he has demonstrated over the last 11 years. He is too fully absorbed and obsessed by detail and has no understanding of the bigger picture. He is far too controlling and distrustful and that provides problems with the type of people he surrounds himself with. He is not willing to listen to advice and is prone to serious misjudgement. There are many practical examples of this, everything from the sell-off of gold to pensions and savings.
  
  While he 'bores on' the Conservatives will not be resting.
  
  Phase 1 of the Cameron project has concluded most successfully and the timing is good.
  
  Now to start phase 2 - moving from image to substance and as one commentator in The Times says 'to excite the public with a slow policy striptease....'
• keith, Dovr wrote:
  BAZ
  I think phase 2 (as you call it)
  will be most interesting, as up today its just bee an opposition party
  now the conservatives will come nder closer scrutiny as to date the policies have still to come
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  i hope that you are wrong about 2 more years.
  
  usually governments go to the people after 4 years, mr major insisted on going the full term, the rest is history.
  
  barry(not the posh one)
  
  a boring PM is usually a good sign.
  they tend not to get involved in expensive wars, and grand plans that boost their ego.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  Who knows what the future holds after last Thursday!!!!
  GB has a big ob on his hands over the next 6 months, It will be interesting to watch how he plans to re -engage
  k
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Big ob??????? Of course I meant big JOB
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sorry to be a bit slow herem but just spotted barry the money's comment
  on mr cameron.
  moving on from image to substance???
  
  
  i understood that you thought mr c was a political heavyweight all along.
  
  i must agree with the posts of keith and barry m that the cat is out of the bag and the voters will be hanging on his every word.
  
  more importantly the media will too.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard.
  
  DC is a leader of substance and nothing I have said counters that however you may love to twist things.
  
  He had a strategy, that stategy has worked in achieving the first objective, that of de-contaminating the Conservative brand. Our problems were never about policy, as surveys have shown, but always about image and in this image obsessed age that is a serious issue.
  
  Stage 1 of David Cameron's project was therefore to do with image with policy substance being the next stage.
  
  People are now ready to take more interest in policy, we are being listened to again, so now is the time for his, 'slow striptease' of policies in the run up to the election. Phase 2. he will not reveal it all too quickly as we have seen how our policies are stolen by Labour when they chime with the public. Inheritance Tax, taxation of non-doms and taxing flights rather than passengers, being just three of those adopted in a watered down or botched way over the last 12 months.
  
  DC's substance is demonstrated by the successes achieved so far in the local elections. 44% of the vote a few days ago is the best we have achieved for a long long time.
  
  He has certainly proved his worth as a political strategist and leader.
  
  Labour is on the way out, the tipping point has been achieved.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry your post of this morning contradicts what you have posted this evening.
  
  i will not accuse you of twisting my words though.
  
  many times i have said that DC is an empty vessel, with a lot of soundbites.
  
  he has always moulded himself on mr blair.
  
  i will await eagerly the substance to emanate from him.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are desperate Howard in trying to obscure political facts and make Labour look better.
  
  Make-up can be used to cover just so many blemishes, Labour have moved from 'posh spice' to the 'Elephant man' of politics. Its true ugliness and incompetence revealed to all.
  
  Get over the fact that at long last Labour are in the way out.
  
  David Cameron is on the way in, he has showed himself to be a formidable political strategist and will now be getting on with the the run-up to booting your mob out.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  I will say again, the next election when GB Calls it, will be without doubt a close run thing.
  
  MY real fear is that no party will have overall control and we end up with a mis mash of parties, all fighting for survival, but not looking after the nations interests.
  
  Without doubt as iv said in previous postings Labour not unexpectedly took a drubbing at the polls, but DC still has to come out with firm policies which he has been reluctant to do up to now, because he knows people will dislike them and he wants to be the Good boy.
  
  At the moment we are seeing like the Lib dems did/do promising the world knowing that it will never happen.
  
  The only losers are the general public.
  
  
  I feel its time to make national politicians accountable for actions;
  Ie if they promise to do something and then are elected they should have a time limit if they don't achieve maybe have another election?
  blimey thats radical!!
  
  no but we will go on with the 2 parties promising prior to elections.
  
  
  there has to be a better way
  and DC is not the answer we did a radical change from all of of this
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Have you not read or watched any news Keith, or read many of my posts. Or perhaps you choose to ignore what you dont like in favour of your superfiscal assumptions.
  
  It still has not sunk in yet has it, we have never had problems producing policies the public like. When Conservative announce a policy Labour go and copy it!!!! - Inheritance Tax, Non-Doms - Aircraft tax and so on.
  
  That is why policy announcements have to be done at the right time and that is the next stage of the Cameron project.
• Guest 671 wrote:
  To PaulB and All
  Thank you for accepting me to this forum. I truly believe that with discussion, compromise and common sense, important issues can be moved forward by people, for the people, using these forums.
  I am an ex-miner and labour supporter in as much as I always vote. I have never been involved with politics except in the Miner’s Strike and with the MoveTheMiner Campaign.
  I have grave concerns with the way this country is heading. Our old age pensioner’s are dying and not being looked after like they should be, Disabled, single parents and un-employed are being attacked for being a drain on resources, unfairly in my view. Low paid workers are being bashed. Of course there are problems in all these areas that need dealing with, but they need dealing with in a better way than they are now.
  The majority of the youth of today are a credit to themselves and us, especially having to grow up in the environment that we have created for them. The few that have gone down the wrong road urgently need our help. in my youth, I respected my parents and family, I did not like most of my teachers but I did have respect for them and the odd cane here and there, worked. I did not see it at the time but I do now. The only policeman I can remember from back then, was a huge guy called PC Flowers. I was off down the wrong road, in with the wrong crowd and broke a mirror in a pub, PC Flowers grabbed me and said "I know your dad Tom and I’ll be telling him what you have done". That was enough for me to take stock and think about what I was doing wrong. The youth’s on that wrong road today have no respect for anyone; therefore have no one to show them there is an alternative route.
  I believe that Greed is the biggest reason this country is going the way it is, I believe common sense has left the building and I believe that Do-Gooders, who think that criminals, rapists and paedophiles should have the same rights as their victims, should serve time with these criminals in jails that don’t have lovely reception area’s, tv’s, pc’s, pool tables and al-a carte menus.
  I am for I D cards, anything that can stop murders or rapes or bombs must be used, and I think it should combine passport and driving licence as well or I would be reluctant to pay for it. I understand the cries of big brother, but don’t you think the gates are open and the horse is long gone.
  Too many greedy, selfish people are in Government in Industry and even in our National Health.
  We all have to accept that there is Rich and Poor (should read rich and not so rich) Boss’s and Workers, Labour and Tory etc. We all have different views and opinions but that should not stop us working together to achieve the best we can for everyone. This country has big problems and the 3 big parties should stop sniping at each other and start to work together for the good of this country.
  As I have said I am not well up on politics, especially Irish Politics, but what they seem to have achieved by sitting at the same table and talking and compromising should be an example to our politicians. Sorry if gone on too much. Bored you all already I expect. Thanks.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Gary, an interesting post.
  
  Much of what you say I, as a died in wool traditional Tory, would agree with.
  
  You talk about the 3 main Parties sniping at each other. I would not characterise it as sniping. Each has a different view of what is right for the country and it is right that they debate, discuss and disagree on the issues. Free elections are where the direction of the country is settled but the debate never ends.
  
  If all the Parties were to get together and agree a cosy common approach then democracy would go out of the window. There are different interpretations of what is right for the country and even when an objective is agreed there are different approaches to achieve it.
  
  These disagreements are an important part of a free democracy, its what makes it tick. Feelings do and will run high, sometimes the standard of debate is high, sometimes not. Those engaged in the process are humans with all the failings that go along with it.
  
  My message is simple - cherish the freedom of debate, many people in this world do not enjoy that...
  
  One issue you mentioned is i.d. cards. Do not place too much faith in them. Such cards do not and will not solve or prevent any crime at all. Where there are already such cards they dont do so, after all. They would mainly serve as a means of keeping track of and controlling the law abiding among us. Me, I dont trust Government (any Government) not to abuse such things. Personally I would rather the money going into these go into more police out on the streets.
• Guest 671 wrote:
  hi Barry Williams, in your last posting to kieth you point out some cases in which labour are agreeing with the torys, only you call them copy-cats. thats the playground sniping i'm talking about. i agree we all have different views and opinions, but you cant dismiss views and opinions because you dont like the people that make them,let us all listen to each other without prejudice.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Gary - I was stating a relevant established fact in response to a ludicrous claim by Keith that Conservatives had no policies.
  
  It was a perfectly legitimate and valid point for which I cited three specific examples to support my comment.
  
  I like my politics to be hard edged and I say it as I see it and stuff mincing around and all that pc nonsense. Those who cant stand the heat and all that!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  gary
  
  the way i see it, is that most parties have broadly similar policies.
  
  they tend to swap them around and dress them up slightly differently.
  
  barry
  
  your playground language does you no credit.
  
  "boot out my lot" indeed.
  am not a member of any political party, and have made clear on here,
  that i have no ontention of voting for labour or indeed anyone else at the next election unless fundamental changes happen.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Gary
  you make points that I have made many times before.
  
  open debate fine, but bore people no.
  
  we are very lucky to see a number of posters on here from many political backgrounds and non political.
  
  politics can bore people, and theres a need to re engage
  
  well done gary
• Guest 640 wrote:
  GaryC you are very welcome. In your short time with us you have made excellent contributions and we can always use those .. so great stuff. Im sure I speak for all the guys and gals when I say that we have all enjoyed the Miner Story and debate and are happy to see you contributing here too on Political Comment.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Come on howard. You go to great lengths to defend and promote Labour and have a long history of doing so. Stop pretending.
  
  And, if you insist on getting personal, at least my 'schoolground language' contains capitals, punctuation and is mostly spelt right....
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Comon now lads..keep it cool !
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Howard has contributed on many varied subjects, and although we have not always agreed I respect his right to post.
  
  The problem I have with your latest post is that you make out to be near perfect with spelling etc, I hope that Paulb will agree with me whn I say that this Forum was NOT set up for those that are able to be perfct in every way, its to let everyone have the right to have a say.
  That said, you have often also made errors with spelling or not made sense(and not your political view i Don't mean!)
  
  whats most important is that we encourage people to post from lots of different backgrounds for open debate, when we start to question people's ability to post we are on a slippery slope and this would probably put people off posting.
  
  I hope that we can ENCOURAGE rather than put people down
  its a good web site, long may it continue.
• Guest 671 wrote:
  Hi Barry Williams, you summed up my point in your last post to me. Your opinions are “relevant established facts” & Keith’s are “ludicrous claim’s”. I am not being personnel to you, I am saying this attitude is rife in government and is not balanced and not helpful in solving the problems this country has. The issue of I.D cards, do you really believe they ” will not solve or prevent any crime at all” are they trying to introduce them to “control the law abiding among us”?
  I totally agree with you, we should say things as we see them, there is no point in mincing around as you put it and again I agree with you about over the top pc nonsense. Ps. I love it in the kitchen!
  
• Guest 671 wrote:
  Hi keith, I totally agree with you, what’s all the fuss about spelling and punctuation anyway, it’s the content that matters, some people will be put off from making comments if this continues
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  you must try to remove your blue blinkers sometimes.
  
  i have said many times recently on this forum that the present government is past it's sell by date.
  
  i have also said that i have no intention of voting for them next time around.
  i compared them, a few weeks ago, with the last days of mr majors administration.
  
  you agreed 100%.
  
  did you vote conservative in 1997?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Of course Howard - even the second rate John Major is far favourable to any incompetent Labour administration.
  
  The fact is I detest Labours whole view of society.
  
  If you are so disenchanted why do you jump to their defence all the time?
  
  Anyway to move on a bit:
  
  There is a poll in tomorrows Sun. Not a newspaper I have any time for, but the poll is by YouGov who are one of the better polling organisations and were just about the only polling company to get the London mayor result right so they have credability.
  
  To quote:
  "LABOUR has slumped to its lowest point since records began in the 1930s, a devastating Sun poll reveals tonight. And the Tories are enjoying their second biggest poll lead in history... Our poll shows that Labour would be in deeper trouble even if they were led by Tony Blair. And it confirms potential successors Ed Balls, David Miliband, Jack Straw, Harriet Harman, Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson and James Purnell would ALL make things even worse in voters’ eyes."
  
  It places the Conservatives on 49%, Labour 23% and Libdems 17%
  
  I really do believe that even with the election 2 years away there is no way Labour can recover now. There is worse to come as well with the economy, 42 day detention, the Labour split over Scotland and so on....
  
  Start packing your bags Gwyn, you are on your way out.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW has urged Gwyn Prosser MP to pack his bags..time to move out. See the piece above and indeed BarryW's comment below. Although there has been a massive swing away from Labour nationally and this latest catastrophic( there can be no other word for it) poll confirms it's even getting worse... Im not sure however, if this national seachange will result in a toppling of Gwyn in our local situation.
  
  Gwyn is very aware of the difficulties ....
  
  "The Opinion Polls make pretty Grim reading!" says the headline in Gwyn's Dover Express column. Our MP is likeable and popular, he puts himself about in Westminster in a big way on our behalf, so he is seen as solid, reliable, good natured and so forth. His name crops up on national radio and television quite often, highlighting Dover well. He hasnt committed any massive gaffs or clangers or whatever you might like to call them, and I think his position is strong locally.
  
  He has acknowledged that Charlie Elphicke will make a staunch opponent. Charlie of course has made massive headway from his early days here in Dover..when we all scrathed our heads upon his announcement saying bafflingly..who?? He is also a good natured guy and has the advantage of riding in on the crest of the current Conservative wave. So it will be closer than it has been for a while but all is not lost for Labour yet.
  
  Nationally though I feel the Labour goose is cooked.
  
  On a lighter note...doesnt Boris have an attractive sister...she certainly lights up our page above. I didnt know he had a sister until last night.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB... Dover has usually swung with the national vote and the three elections won by Gwyn Prosser did not differ significantly from the national trend.
  
  I remember when the well respected and highly popular Labour MP David Ennals was kicked out as Dover's MP (I was only 15 at the time!). Ennals was much more highly regarded and more capable (a frontbencher) than Gwyn Prosser. I had and have some respect for him and that says a lot for me when talking about a Labour MP.
  
  I really do not see any sign of any particular popularity for GP, to the contrary. I really cant discerne any significant personal following and this is born out by the election results in 1997 and since.
  
  Opinion polling in marginals such as Dover shows a larger pro-Conservative swing than the national polls as well. Also it was widely reported that two polling organisations have predicted Dover will be won by the Conservatives. All of that was before the local elections and this more recent poll where Labour have fallen to an all time low.
  
  Labour problems continue to stack up. Inflationary pressures are getting worse, house prices are likely to continue downards for a while and we still have the 'slowdown' to contend with. A recession is still a possibility though I have never taken the view that it was a certainty or indeed likely. The last poll was before his Scottish problems where he is clearly shown to have lost his grip and there are more problems with 42 day detention and the possible loss of Crewe.
  
  In additional DC will be seeking to build on Conservative successes so far with the steady timed launch of a whole raft of eye catching policies.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Sorry to make a comment slightly off the political nature, but just to pick up on PaulB's comment about Rachel; yes she looks quite nice and I'm sure she's a lovely person but do you think that the 'wig looking' hairstyle is a genetic thing?
• Guest 649 wrote:
  I might hold the balance I will get over 1000votes or more but where will they come from Right or Left we will have to wait and see but I will be standing for ALL of them.
  
  Vic Matcham
• Riccardo Cervi, Dover wrote:
  It is nice to find a place to which I can air my views to, hopefully, people who may take note. I was born and bred in the suburbs of North London, and have only lived in Dover for the past 4 years. Although not a local, I'd like to think my voice could still be heard.
  Anyway, lets get to the point. Not wanting to rely too much on statistics, recent calculations seem to point quite firmly to a rather disillusioned, if not disappointed electorate. Listening and looking at the way Society expresses itself, suggests to me that people don't want to be taken for a ride. Fundamentally, people know what is just and what is right, and will not be taken in by the spin and empty promises of a Government who haven't quite made the obvious distinction between Political Arenas and Celebrity status.
  It is the Electorate that makes the Government, using their feet, and for the most part, over the last few years, have made the decision not to!!
  I think it is about time the Government or the present Opposition started to Listen to what the Electorate really want. And I mean listen. Don't try to tell us what you think is good for us. Listen to what we really want.
  There are always issues, national and international that will grab our attention. These things will come and they will go. Always have, always will. But you have got to put your own Home in order first. I think you know it.
  So, enough with the Spin. It's about time to shut up and get on with the job in hand.
  Enough with moral pontification and inane rhetoric. We don't want to hear it.
  If you, the politicians, really want to do what we want it's about time you started to listen.
  Opportunities and Forums for discussion and argument may well be the answer. Yes talk, and I know talk doesn't solve problems, but it starts the process.
  Intelligent and well-ordered Forums will sort the wheat from the chaff.
  People, I think don't want un-necessary intervention, they want a Government they can trust, and one that can simply get on with the job!
  I want my vote to count, and I'd like to think the Conservative Party are the ones who can swing my vote.
  But I don't know, yet. I don't know their full manifesto, and they are untried in Power for the last few years.
  I need to be persuaded, and I think a large proportion of the Electorate also need to be persuaded. If you really want power in Government, it is about time you really listened to what the Electorate want.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  welcome to the forum ricardo.
  
  there are many political views here.
  
  some even change them as often as their undercrackers.
  
  you will soon pick up on what is what.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Just a small point Ricardo.
  
  What people want is impossible to define and besides politicians spend too much time using focus groups and polling to do just that. The result, bland politics and bland politicians.
  
  Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, for example, determined what needed to be done and led the way to influence events in that direction.
  
  Its leadership that we need not a matter of the blind following the blind.
  
  often you find in the decision making process the right decision to make is the one that would be unpopular.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  So Ricardo you can see Barrys wanting leadership rather than listening to you and others!!!
  
  Theres no doubt as iv said many times before labour nationally took a drubbing but it was a kick up the bum.
  
  Its my humble opinion that things far worse have happened over the past 3 general elections and as usual bAS predicted Gwyn will go
  thankfully he didn't.
  Nobody doubts that our charlie will give gwyn a run for his money
  but the electorate do have long memories of people like BAZs quotes
  his Maggie.
  Maggie did a lot of amage to the every day person and was firmly an anti trade union person, and Mr Osbourne has already said if(and only if!!) that lot get in, he will do even more to restrain the unions.
  
  What does that mean in reality? it means the workers will get screwed even more, have less and less rights, poorer pay, the list goes on.
  
  I'm the first to admit Gordon needs to get his Ars* in gear but locally rather BAZ than talking to your converted, have a chat to a wider audience, you might just find people aint quite saying what you believe they are.
  
  Also the local Labour party campaign during elections is quite effective and again that wikl make a difference.
  
  
  I havn't even mentioned the differences of opinions in ocal conservative ranks like
  Charlie wanting Buckland hospital to stay
  Paul watkins doesn';t
  
  Charlie doesn't want all the house building
  Paul watkins does
  
  so its not all sweet locally for the conservatives and those differences are starting to rear there head.
  
  
  It will be a good contest.
  
  I don't think I will make an further comment on Vic as i'v made my view known there. but Vic will be Vic!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some shrewd observations from you there keith.
  
  back to your old ways.
  
  leadership rather than listening, barry will not understand that though.
  i spotted that difference of opinion between the fuhrer and our new prospective parliamentary candidate.
  
  i saw chas a day or so ago in priory street, nice suit!!
  
  yelling in to his mobile like a dom joly character.
  
  everyone was looking at him.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  My point is just to balance things up, I havn't said everything in the garden is rosey for Labour, far from it.
  But Labour locally do tend to get out over the weeks/years leading up to elections.
  as usually reaches a wide audience, I was surprized to see how many people went over to gwyns stall on the saturday after the dismal election results, all re assuring him, so t does paint a different picture.
  
  Charlie boy will at last liven up the local scene
  but he still has, for many people be seen as a genuine politician and not one who will promise the world.
  I think he has done well up to now, and it will be a very close contest
  but just sounding off from other local people they would still prefer gwyn for another term, and then maybe switch(but that is if charlie proves himself)
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Riccardo a very interesting post..very good to see you with us. We are always interested in seeing good postings on here so many thanks for that. Hopefully some more from you to come too.
• Guest 671 wrote:
  Hi Riccardo Welcome to the forum, I am new to the site like you, I think you make some very good points .I too think we, the electorate are not listened to, I regularly visit family and the discussion always ends up with us trying to fathom out what’s wrong with this country and I can visage thousands of home’s having the same conversation’s all trying to put the country right. I know we don’t know the complexities of running a government, but we are not stupid either, many things that have happened over the last few years have caused much concern.
  
  I have many questions that I would like answers to, here’s one, I have a fully trained nurse in my family, married 2children, struggling, as is most nurse’s. She could leave her job today, join an agency, return to her same hospital tomorrow, doing fewer duties during her shift and get four times more pay, its only her principles that stop her from doing the swap but how many have had to swallow their principles and follow the money, money that comes out of the National Health Trough? Winner’s, people who run the agencies, loser’s, National health.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  It isn't only the money that attracts agency nurses - it's the flexibility of shifts and the choices of work and worktimes, and there are compromises to make as a result - less reliable income, less leave etc etc. And something to bear in mind is that the NHS - and many Private care agencies and homes - would fold without agency nursing. If the NHS were a more atractive proposition - and not just financially - it would attract better nurses. There are some great nurses to whom I would trust my life, but there are far more who are dreadful and don't give a damn. The recruitment and training and the follow on support of nurses is a shambles, hospitals are on the whole horrific holding bays for the sick who are placed in beds apparently just to see if they are going to die or not with little thought given to dignity, privacy, hygiene, personal fears, or personal circumstances. My own experience from both sides of the bad pan are that, in fact, it is often the agency nurses who offer the best service, possibly partly because they have to demonstracte their worth to get repeat business!
• Guest 671 wrote:
  Hi Bern, interesting point about flexibility, choices of work and work times, but surely if our nurses were offered these options along with a decent wage, they would be a lot happier and a lot more efficient?
  I too have not long returned from period in QEQM. And I agree with you, it was an absolute shambles, but that was not down to the nurses, not in my case anyway.
• bern, dover wrote:
  If your poor experience wasn't down to the nurses you were lucky, or maybe generous in your view....!!! I agree nurses should have a better deal, but it should be predicated on better performance - and that can't be measured in the current targets, as all they do is quantify bed spaces and time slots and not the real quality of care and outcomes. The trend created and perpetuated by this government of trying to measure standards by targets created by people who don't understand either clinical issues or ethical issues has driven down real quality of care and support and has let appalling nurses free to trouser NHS money for not onmly poor care but dangerous and cruel "care". I neither exagerate nor whinge - I am simply tired of and appalled by the collusion that allows consistently dreadful practice to carry on across the UK.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some interesting posts here on the subject of nurses.
  having experienced the highs and lows of the qeqm and bill harvey recently, and seen loved ones being treated.
  
  i have reached the conclusion that they are either totally dedicated professionals that work their socks off or lazy people that could not get a job anywhere else.
  
  there seems to be no middle ground.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Did anyone hear 'Any Questions'?
  
  Gordon Brown deceived his backbenchers over the 10% tax rate, that has now been established. This is now backfiring on Brown in a serious way. here is a transcript of a small exchange between participants:
  
  """"Jonthan Dimbelby: Because you, amongst others, are prepared to go into the lobbies and vote against the Budget, through an amendment, and that will be treated, at least by the party, as a vote of confidence in the Prime Minister? And therefore he falls?
  
  Frank Field (Labour MP): It would be very difficult, obviously, for him to continue...
  
  Alan Duncan (Conservative MP): We have just witnessed a very very serious moment in British politics... [Brown's] entire credibility and decency are on the line""""""""
  
  Therefore a vote of no confidence is now possible bringing about a General Election possibl in a matter of weeks....
  
  Can any Prime Minister have ever made such a total hash of things in less than a year that he so alienates his own backbenchers they are willing cause a General Election with the certainty that their party will lose?
  
  You are also getting an insight into the financial mess the country is in. I have said all along that he was a useless Chancellor. He was lucky as most of the consequences of his poor decisions were masked by a good international economic climate and the 'golden legacy' he had from Ken Clarke. That created a myth about him that has exploded with the present economic crisis and, as PM, his incompetence is exposed for all to witness.
  
  It does not say much for the Labour Party, as a whole, as it was they who allowed him to assume the Premiership unchallenged. They actually believed the myths they created about him and are now paying the consequences.
  
  Now we have Prescott saying that he told Blair to sack Brown and other ex-Ministers like Byers also talking out against Brown. This Government is falling apart rapidly.
  
  The sooner the election comes the better, kick this lot out and get back to sound Government.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Howard - I think you are, on the whole, right. There are some fabulous nurses (and they tend, in my experience, to be the more mature people who have been around a while and experienced stuff), and there are some scarily bad nurses who have no empathy, no intelligence and no morals! And not much in vetween. Sadly, it is my experience that the horrid ones outnumber the good ones many times over. And that won't change while we have the current system of targets (which actually encourages poor pratice by expecting us to measure bed/time targets instead of peoples experience and outcomes) and pay scales, which allow any old idiot to be paid the same as a decent nurse.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bern
  thankfully the good ones are at the sharp end.
  that applies to doctors as well as nurses.
  
  the intensive therapy unit(as it is now called) at ashford were superb.
  
  they must have been on something to have the energy that i witnessed.
  
  when you see a loved one suffering and about to go, there is some comfort to know, that everything and more has been done.
  
  even when they had given up, every effort was made to make the patient
  as comfortable as posssible.
• bern, dover wrote:
  My Dad died at the beginning of April in Ireland. It was an indescribably horrible experience with no dignity, no thought and no humanity and it was exhausting simply ensuring that he had the basics and we got the information we needed - and the same experience happens here too often as well. I have seen it as well as heard about it. It is luck and not good services that determines how we experience the end of life pathway, and that's not good enough.
• bern, dover wrote:
  P.S. - Howard - I am glad your experience was a positive one.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Im sure BAZ your a great believer in john prescott!!in the past you have said hes a bafoon, not fit to hold office etc etc
  
  now hes right???
  strange how your opinion changes overnight to suit the ocassion
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bern sorry to hear about your 'indescribably horrible experience' there over in the old country.These occasions are sad and difficult anyway so when things go wrong it must be awful. Im sure as you say there are many similar cases here too.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - I have not said anything that suggests I changed my mind. Prescott told Blair he should sack Brown, I stated that as a matter of fact and that certainly does not imply any change in the low opinion I have of Prescott (or Brown)
  
  As I have said before you do yourself no favours by claiming I said things I did not say.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Thank you PaulB.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  If anyhting illustrates what a load of scumbags are in Government this report from The Independent does: (I really cant find words strong enough to transmit my total contempt for the Labour Government so scumbags, however inadequate, will have to do)
  
  """""A highly sensitive internal report into the state of the British Army has revealed that many soldiers are living in poverty. Some are so poor that they are unable to eat and are forced to rely on emergency food voucher schemes set up by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
  
  Some of Britain's most senior military figures reacted angrily yesterday to the revelations in the report, criticising the Government's treatment of its fighting forces.
  
  The disturbing findings outlined in the briefing team report written for Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, include an admission that many junior officers are being forced to leave the Army because they simply cannot afford to stay on."""""
  
  They send young men and women into harms way inadequately equipped and undermanned, getting killed or losing legs as a result and we then see the above report.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah BarryW restrain yerself me oul china..scumbags indeed. It is very hard for many of us to beleive that British soldiers cannot afford to eat. It is straining credibility. I just find that a propoganda piece too far...according to what you say written by the army for the army. They are on a liveable income like the rest of us so I cannot fathom such a situation. We have peoples around the world currently who most definitely cannot afford to eat ... in many nasty situations, so British soldiers starving, well it just doesnt ring true.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - That was my first reaction, I didnt believe it but I then read on and I found more detail. The problem stems from a change in the system made in 2006... Here is a bit more detail from the article, as I say it is in the Independent, not a 'red top' and its not even a Tory favouring newspaper,...
  
  """"""""""""""Pressure from an undermanned army is "having a serious impact on retention in infantry battalions", with nearly half of all soldiers unable to take all their annual leave as they try to cover the gaps.
  
  The analysis, described by General Dannatt as "a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the views and concerns of the Army at large", states: "More and more single-income soldiers in the UK are now close to the UK government definition of poverty." It reveals that "a number of soldiers were not eating properly because they had run out of money by the end of the month". Commanders are attempting to tackle the problem through "Hungry Soldier" schemes, under which destitute soldiers are given loans to enable them to eat.
  
  The scheme symbolises a change from the tradition of soldiers getting three square meals a day for free. Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.
  
  The controversial Pay as You Dine (PAYD) regime, which requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals, has seen commanding officers inundated with complaints from soldiers unhappy at the quality of food that they get and the amount of paperwork involved.
  
  Senior officers warn in the report that "there is a duty of care issue" and add that the "core meal" provided to soldiers on duty "is often not the healthy option". The confusion of which soldiers even qualify for free meals while on duty is revealed in the admission that "in some areas the soldier has to pay and then claim back and in others the duty meal is included in the contract".""""""""""""
  
  Once again we can see that this Governments way of making everything more complex comes to the fore, even aside from the dreadful underfunding issues.
  
  As I say, this country is being run by those unfit to clean the shoes of the youngest soldier. However inadequate a description, 'scumbags' is what this Government is made up of.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  OK I have posted a lot today, bit quiet in office though lots to do this afternoon!!!!
  
  Could not resist taking time posting this though, as I think it has particular relevance to Dover. We have great trouble attracting the larger stores to town so the small local traders are all the more important to us. Several people have posted about their problems with rent and business rates.
  
  David Cameron has announced an aspect of his social cohesion policy, one affecting local small shops.
  
  He confirmed pledges to increase protection of small shops from the planners and extended the pledges by promising to look at how taxation and red tape can be reduced to help independent shops.
  
  He said something along the lines of how the personal and specialised offer from independent shops, plus the way they are more involved in community activities, are plugged into local social networks and support local suppliers. It means that they should be treated differently he said.
  
  He said they should be considered to compete with larger chains not just on economic terms, such as price or the range of goods or services available but also on their social value.
  
  This policy could have wider applications whereby social, as well as monetary, value would be taken into account.
  
  He also proposed sparing post offices and cottage hospitals from closure.
  
  The next Conservative government will attempt to develop a measure of 'social value' to inform policy-making when in power.
  
  This is a new departure for Conservatives and I can see how it makes sense. We need to take care in how it is applied because if done in a bad way it could have some unforseen and unwelcome consequences such as higher prices. But for too long the big chains have had things too much their own way so this approach is certainly to be welcome.
  
  It is also well attuned to the policy of 'localism' that is informing so much Conservative policy thinking. Expect a lot more imaginative and interesting idease to empower individuals and small businesses.
  
  
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I agree about the business rates Barry, there is a serious problem in Dover because the greedy landlords are charging way too much rent for many of their poor condition business premises.
  Business rates are based on the amount of rent that is paid and Dover businesses are trading far below the level they are set at.
  
  The rates in Canterbury are - size for size, the same as in Dover and many Town Centre businesses there are doing very nicely; the same size and type of shop here in Dover, will pay the same, but have substantially reduced footfall and turnover.
  
  There needs to be a different way to calculate business rates.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sorry Roger but the business rates are not dependant on the rents.
  
  A 'poundage' is set by the Government for all businesses as the 'national non-domestic rate'.
  
  The valuation office (part of HMRC) then set the rateable value for all business premises.
  
  That rateable value does not depend on the rents as such. A number of factors go into the calculation of the RV including the market value of the business premises. The rents may or may not be in line with what the valuation office asseses as a market value.
  
  The NNDR is multiplied by the RV.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Looks like from your caption above that Osbournes days are numbered?
  
  
  As for BAZ well if hes going to wait for a conservative govt, d we realy want to wait 3 more terms?
  #And maybe not even then!!
  
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Yes I know that Barry, but the rates are to a great extent calculated on the expected rent obtained. The poundage is set indeed by the Government.
  
  This is the way it was calculated when we had our guest house and this is the way the businesses tell me their rates are calculated.
  
  The owners of the buildings want to keep the value of their portfolios high (for obvious reasons) so the rents are high to maintain that valuation and so inturn, their rates are high; which may not be that much of a problem if the businesss were trading at a much higher level than they are.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Roger makes an interesting observation there about the rates/rents in Dover being the same as Canterbury. That of course is a preposterous situation and is crippling anybody here in Dover trying to start up an enterprise. The rates/ rents are way too expensive. Dover does not wallow in wealth, certainly nowhere near the same level of wealth as Canterbury, so the businesses here will never generate the same amount of income.
  
  Result of this of course is that so much revenue is needed just to keep open and this revenue level isnt easily found here in Dover. That is why so many of our local shops remain empty or return to empty soon after attempting the near impossible..despite promises of an upturn we are still riddled with empty shops.
  
  The other downside of this of course is that we have so few shops in Dover to satisfy the insatiable demands of women..and as we all know women are insatiable...when it comes to shopping! All the women in my immediate arena spend all their cash in..yes, Canterbury.
  
  
  Keef yes poor oul Osborne's image will be seriously dented by his unfortunate persona in this new show.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - Businesses in Dover dont pay the same rates as the equivilent in Canterbury. They have the same 'poundage' but the rateable values (based on market values) are higher in Canterbury, so they pay more.
  
  Rents are disassociated with the rateable value in the sense that the revenue will always base the rateable value on the market value. For instance, if someone owns a business property that they rent out to a member of the family they dont have to charge the market rent. This lower rent will have no influence over the rateable value determined by the valuation office.
  
  The same market value principal is well established when it comes to taxation. Try, for instance, selling something to a member of the family, an investment property perhaps, the Capital Gains Tax payable will be based on the market value not on what is paid for it.
• Riccardo Cervi, Dover wrote:
  Thankyou for your welcome. It's a good opportunity here to air one's views. There"s some good well-informed argument. Unfortunately, I'm not so well in-formed. I just know something ain't right. Barry and Howard you make some interesting arguments on particularly technical issues, I wish my Members of Parliament were just as astute.
  Cameron's Social cohesion policy sounds like a bloody good idea, but I hadn't heard of it before. Yes, Community has changed, we need to recognise it and we need to adapt to it.
  Re: the Leadership issue, We need someone who realises the need for talking and listening and the guts to stand up and say this needs changing! The time is right for someone to take the bull by the horns, and start using what we got and make something of it.
  Someone with the same sort of verve and enthusiasum to making money, and apply it in their approach to the problems found in the political arena.
  We need a Leader who can see the problems and then fix them.
• Keith, dover wrote:
  Riccardo
  Interesting, sadly politics is going very stale, locally and nationally, and its not about change, because believe me DC has those on the right of his party just waiting for him to slip up(and he will) before they come out with the knives, and we have seen this in previous leadership elections in all 3 parties.
  
  There is a great deal of interest in local affairs in schools, which I saw when I visited them on a regular basis, If you engage with young and senior citizens they do get involved,and have opinions, sadly this happens less and less.
  
  We have seen consultation shams.
  
  Dont get caught up in this hype, all Govts make promises, and a lot is to make sure they are elected.
  
  At last GB is fighting back, and hopefully DC will come out wih some policies that can come under deep scrutiny, and costed!!!!!
  
  The good thing in Dover area is everyones vote will count again this time round in the general election
  Gwyn or Charlie (sorry frgot who lib dem is) and of course our very own VIC (ind conservative?)
  We can look forward to some very interesting times ahead, some people with head in the clouds, but in the end YOU are the ones who will make decisions on whose elected, and I look forward to all of this, hearing from all the candidates, seeing how there differing campaigns operate, seeing who wins.
  All very interesting
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - speaking from the Right of the Conservative Party you could not be more wrong. DC is in a stronger position in the Conservative leadership than any leader since the heyday of Mrs. T.
  
  GB fighting back, so that is what it is.... What a total bodge of a budget and then a humiliating emergency budget yesterday. The emergency of course was a political one, its Gordon trying to fight off his rebel backbenchers and stop himself from losing the by-election. the biggest by-election bribe in history.
  
  Of course this extra borrowing will in time offset the benefit of the tax cut through higher inflation so we will not end up better off at all. The right thing to do would have been to fund it through budget cuts aimed at waste.
  
  You might all want to know that anyone earning between £6635 and £13355 will still be up to £112 worse off. So you see this 'too little too late' budget still punishes the worse off. The big question is will this be enough to satisfy Labour rebels once they have digested this fact? If so then that throws up some serious questions about their sincerity.
  
  If this is GB's fight back then keep it up GB, lets have more like it... What a useless twerp we have as Prime Minister.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  So GB not your best pal then????
  When you do get past your rose tinted glasses the outside world
  still fear going back to those dreary conservative days, you can believe that if you want, and I;m not talking about rank labour people, im talking about ex conservatives,
  
  Like all other parties(including yours Baz) there will be rebels within the party, look at all those stalking horses put up to challenge tory leaders when in Govt so its nothing new.
  
  Iv said before GB needs to start the fight back, so take on the tories
  to get the conservatives to cost all the promises they make.
  
  I come from the left of the labour party and still hold strong views as you do on your right wing views Baz
  but its the everyday person not into left/right/centre or whatever.
  these are the people that count.
  
  It will be an interesting few years
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith,
  
  I see what you mean by Gorddon's relaunch.
  
  he has delivered his draft Queens speech and guess what, its full of Conservative policy ideas....
  
  Lets see....
  
  Elected sherifs. these were part of our manigesto in the last election and were derided by Labour at the time.
  
  A Constitution for the NHS. suggested by DC in June 2007
  
  Extending flexible working. Something else DC proposed in September 2006
  
  Independent exam regulator, oh that one was put forward in 2005 by DC
  
  Simple savings scheme. Well we had that in our 2005 manifesto.
  
  regulatory budgets. That was suggested at the Conservative conference in 2006.
  
  Shared equity. Another thing that is a Conservative idea originally, goes back a while but many Conservative councils have been developing this one.
  
  Them ;ets not forget his other steals from Conservatives.
  
  Inheritance Tax - he decided to introduce his own lukewarm version that looked better than it really was.
  
  Points system for immigration. Another Tory manifesto item stolen.
  
  Taxing flights rather that the passenger ticket to discourage empty planes.
  
  Non-Dom taxation is another one....
  
  I am sure given time I can think of more.
  
  So have Labour given up on developing their own ideas?
  
  DC did invite Gordon to send his staff to the next Tory conference to get ideas.....
  
  Even raising the nil rate band was the option suggested by Tory peer Lord Forsyth.
  
  Fortunately DC is not announcing too many policies too soon to make sure we have some left for the next election.
  
  So he is re-launching himself based on Conservative policies, very clever.....
  
• Vic Matcam, River wrote:
  I will beputing on this page at the weekend what Wards I will be standing for next time round and I will be on my own again.
  
  Cllr Vic Matcham.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
  
  
  
  Vic
  I can only say again as a small pleb that I am you should re consider
  but its yor call
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  First of all an apology for the number of typos in my last post. I was interupted by a client before I had a chance to read through and had to upload 'as was'.
  
  Keith, nothing more to say?
  
  You cannot refute the fact of all those Conservative ideas and policies, stolen.
  
  The obvious conclusion is that Labour are an idea free zone.
  
  Of course, as usual, they will take these ideas and bodge them in implementation or will water them down. that is, of course, if they actually do take action. We are rather used to labour claiming that they are going to act and then not acting.
  
  Once recent example of that was the review they implemented in 1998 into long term care in old age. There was a report they commissioned, cost them £millions, which was sidelined and ignored. Now, of course, they are, guess what, commissioning yet another report/consultation on that subject. Talk not action is what we are used to from this useless Government.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  victor
  
  i may be wrong but i think that you can only stand in one ward.
  
  maybe one of the party faithful will correct me.
  
  am i still on as your campaign manager?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I think Vic is talking about standing in all elections
  so he can stand anywhere in each election
  but only once!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Gawd isnt it a scary prospect for the immediate future when Mervyn King, the Governer of the Bank of England, the head honcho with our purse strings, has warned us in a major speech yesterday that the good times are over for us all. He said we have had a prosperous ten years of easy living and good times, but now we should brace ourselves for the pinch, the economic downturn, the pain. I think most of us know things are getting bad. We feel it in our own daily purse...with poorly judged tax rises, with higher food prices, with increases at the petrol pump, with horror gas and electricity rises in the face of huge company profits....but Gordon Brown has begun his fightback, as no doubt Keef will welcome, by leaping to the fore and saying he is the man to lead us through these hard times.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Or as the fella carrying my bags in a hotel in Ireland said "follow me - I'll be right behind you...!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BERN; Or the fella in the bunker at war saying
  Over the top lads, you go first!!!!!
• KEITH, Dover wrote:
  Hello
  well I won't add to this but over the years lets see who your
  favourite politician was any year
  
  
  
  And who did you dislike the most
  
  
  Please try not to turn this into a political party bashing
  look at it in a restrained way, all parties, all politicians, all colours
  
  well??????????????????????????????????????
  
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. Regarding GB's 'fightback' I hope he keeps it up. He has been doing the rounds of radio and tv studios and if his performance on Today is anything to go by he will succeed in winning the Crewe by-election for the Conservatives all on his own.
  
  You have to laugh though. An unpopular government 'fighting back' by adopting many of the ideas and policies of the popular opposition party.
  
  Brown has no vision of his own. He is tired, out of his depth and trying to deal with a economic slowdown that he has failed to prepare for. He claimed to have cured 'boom and bust', it was a foolish statment when he made it and now bust has returned everybidy can see how hopeless the man is.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Tinted glasses comes to mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Guest 660 wrote:
  My fav on the Labour Side was John Smith ot Tony Benn and on the Tory side Ann Widdecombe a fellow Lion
  My Non fav are Maggie Thatcher sorry Barry in the blue corner and Frank Field in the red corner although I admire him a bit more now after standing up on the 10p Tax Burden.
  As far as the Libs go sorry most of them don't do anything for me!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I think JHG that you and I would agree over the Libdems (and Lib forerunners) none of them have been worth a damn for years...
  
  My choices are the direct opposite to your (not surprisingly).
  
  On the Labour side the MP I admire most is Frank Field. Historically I think a lot of David Ennals. There are those who have been way out to the left, and wrong on every major issue, who I still have a sneaking respect for, at least they were honest, Tony Benn being one.
  
  Those I really dislike include the totally odious Ken Livingstone and Brown's clown, Ed Balls.
  
  On the Conservative side, Mrs T tops the list. She was the right woman at the right time and we all owe her a great debt for her economic reforms. Winston Churchill is my great hero and is only just pipped at the post by Mrs T. Going further back Benjamin Disraeli was really the first 'modern' Tory who relatively short period in office were a great success. Those I dislike: well, I do not think much of Francis Pym, Ted Heath or Neville Chamberlain. I dont have a great deal of time for John Major either,.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  well done to keith and bern for lightening the tone.
  
  just to add one that cracked me up.
  
  someone i know, working on the ferries, was allocated an assistant.
  the man was german, so naturally all the banter was going on about 2 world wars 3 world cups etc.
  they are all sitting down to a cup of tea, when the german chap made it known that his grandfather died in a concentration camp.
  
  long embarrassed silence, then someones pipe up with "was he jewish,catholic,communist"?
  
  the reply came back, "nothing like that, he was a guard, got drunk one day and fell off of the watchtower".
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah jeez Howard thats a scream...I fell off me chair with that one.
  
  Heard a little funny story on R4 this morning referring to Matts cartoon in the Daily Telegraph. It shows a guy knocking at somebodys frontdoor and handing the car keys back to the householder and saying...
  
  "I stole your car a month ago but it nearly bankrupted me!!"
  
  I must get back to this page later with my favourite politicians. Nice idea to do that Keef.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  For the Town I will be standing in the Maxton, Elms Vale, and Priory ward or the Castle ward and River for D.D.C..
  
  
  I REMAIN YOURS FAITHFULLY CLLR VIC MATCHAM
• Guest 648 wrote:
  Well Vic you have at least three years ahead of you to campaign.One assumes you will stand as an independant??Whats wrong with standing for River parish Council again Or do you want to wear those robes again??Still competition is good and one should never rest on ones laurels.KCC is next year .
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Vic
  It Is not for me to interfere but just at least study your last result when standing in priory
  
  
  im trying to let you down lightly
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef I think Vic probably enjoys the standing more than the winning. I have a feeling he just likes being involved in the whole paraphernalia of electioneering and elections. It can be quite exciting I imagine, and Vic clearly enjoys being out there and at it. He doesnt have a realistic chance of winning and I suspect he knows that...but then he has won in the past on occasion so you never know.
  
  Its a free democracy and even I could stand as a 'raving looney'. Hell I might even win.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Paul you are right come and join up with me, but I do have one thing Pride and Passion of my Town of Dover and things I do for it[Try and do]. MY new one is let us get back to the right way to say Dover. It is not DOVER IT IS DOVOR This is my next campaign.
  
  Vic [M]
• Guest 648 wrote:
  To repeat the message once again if you are a DDC councillor you represent all the district.I have tenants in small hamlets who are not intrested in Dover...Stand for Dover Town and you can have all the Pride and Passion.Many of us have pride and Passion but we know the restrictions imposed on us .We do the best for all the people all the time a;so with Pride and Passion.
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Renaming Dover DOVOR? Seriously? Why not have a campaign to rename it 'PORTUS DUBRIS' too as that was the original Roman name for Dover.
  
  In fact, while we are at it, maybe Canterbury should be renamed Durovernium Cantiacorum and York Colonia Eburacum.
  
  That won't be completely pointless waste of everyone's time and money either.
  
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Its is not to rename Dover to Dovor,Dovor was its name in the first place, I am saying lets look at puting in back to what it was.
  
  Vic [M]
• bern, dover wrote:
  And while we are at it, let's get back to horse and cart travel, carrier pigeon (no dongles!), and no Pasta and Polenta.....! And no central heating, TV, Wii, or daily papers..........
• ye olde howard mcsweeney, perfidious albion wrote:
  quite right people, we have to move with the times.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  If only your comments were correct I would agree with you.
  But Vic(like most others) goes into elections with the passion to win.
  
  If you had seen Vic at he general election where he thought(cant for the life of me think why) he was going to win seat!!
  he actually got 660 votes when you see how may the lib dems, tory and labour got Vic didnt even get a sniff.
  And he was destroyed, on the night and soon after he was considering giving up altogether.
  It was a terrible night for Vic both vote wise but also emotion wise
  and this affects your family to.
  
  
  He then moved on (after going through loads of parties, and we still dont know hat party he will stand for in general)
  
  he moved on to local elections, where he had won a seat in priory, the last time round he not only lost he came behind all the 3 other main parties
  
  and again vic wasnt a happy bunny.
  
  The people have rejected Vic and the results clearly show that
  
  Having passion is one thing, being representative of the electorate another.
  
  Vic enters elections to win, but hes not done any thing new in the priory area that change his last poor results.
  
  Iv said before its vics call, and of course it is, and its democracy
  but there comes a time when you need to look at yourself and decide if people realy are in tune with what you do.
  In vics case the electorate said no.
  
  All i say to vic is, please think before standing, study results,
  think again
  
  
  but its vic call
  
  
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  There is a song which comes to me "Keep right on to the end of the road,"
  And that is what I will do I will not see the end of that road.[BUT]
  
  Vic Matcham
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  victor
  you will have the last laugh when you wave to the cameras from the doorstep of number 10.
  
  i hope that you will not do a blair and forget that you had a deal to hand over the reins of power to me after a week or so.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Keith, I am with you 100% in all you say in your last post. Surely it would be better by far to donate any money he has to spare on the Kent Air Ambulance, or some other worthy local cause. To waste money in this way is really selfish (in my view). When the KAA and others are crying out for funding it is so sad to see money wasted like this, and as you say, it IS wasted.
• bern, dover wrote:
  What's the big deal? If Vic wants to stand for office what's it to you? He could be spending his money on booze, crack and loose women, but he is spending it on demonstrating his committment to his locality.......we can choose where we place our vote, he can choose to try to get our votes. I spend some of my money on wine or expensive food (when I can!!) - does anyone think I should be giving it to the Air Ambulance instead?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Very interesting post there Keef as there is a lot in there that I wasnt aware of re Vic. I didnt realise he was taking things so seriously. If you do of course politics can be a nasty and disheartening business for both yourself and your family. I thought Vic was tackling things more in the same way that Lord Sutch did with the Monster Raving Looney Party. I dont mean that as any disrespect to Vic, but you really in reality cannot tackle the MP's seat in any serious way without party machinery. To win in those circumstances is virtually unheard of. Nice and all as a candidate might be, people vote for their Party.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  True PaulB, and I am not sure that is a good thing. Clearly a candidate needs power, party and money to make a dent in the campaigning, but that deters a lot of good people and we lose the potential to vote in good individuals. Party Politics may not be the answer despite it being the only way we have at the moment...come the revolution....!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I can see the appeal standing in elections has for Vic. Being at the cente of things at such a time can be envigorating and can certainly boost the old ego. He may have a chance in Parish (including Town) elections but not at District or Parliamentary. The important thing is not to delude yourself that you can win in the latter two, if you do that it can be very hard indeed emotionally.
  
  Vic has a right to stand and that is the way it should be in a democracy. Its his choice.
  
  Also people should be free to spend their money how they want. Perhaps it might do more good donated to the air ambulance but we all have our hobbies. Some build model planes, other go horse or dog racing, others go to night clubs or spend a fortune in pubs or on cigarettes. Vic chooses to spend on elections, so be it.
  
  The next General Election will essentially be a hard fight between Conservatives and Labour. The LibDems will be squeezed out of the race. There is room in all that for a bit of light relief and if Vic chooses to stand so be it. Personally I think he would be better off throwing his help behind Charlie, but its his choice.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Has anyone else felt the irony attached to the "live" comment at the bottom left of the picture on this page.............
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have been following the Crewe by-election quite closely and indeed was tempted by an early start last Friday to join a Conservativehome coach from London to Crewe to help out. I resisted it though!
  
  Today I find the following happening:
  Ladbrokes have closed the book saying a Tory win is a certainty.
  Two Labour Ministers have given up on it, conceding defeat already, Miliband and Harman.
  Recriminations are starting within Labour at their appalling campaign both towards the Whip who was in charge and Gordon Brown.
  
  This is two days from the poll. It is totally unprecedented for thsi to happen. Usually a Party tends to brazen it out and pretend confidence, even when they think they are going to lose, in order to be supportive towards their hard working candidate. But not now, so low has Labour's morale fallen.
  
  This is incredible. This Government continue to fall apart. Just think what will happen when this by-election is out of the way. To think Brown even borrowed £2.7bn to try to stave off defeat....
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  should a candidate really want to stand a chance, then they must have a single issue to raise his/her profile.
  
  vic has about 30 single issues at the last count.
  
  we had that bloke with the safari suit get rid of that creepy chap hamilton on the matter of sleaze.
  there was a doctor in kidderminster that campaigned successfully on saving a hospital.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  HELLO ALL
  Just to return to Vic, I'm always thinking of vic as an individual and the damage t does to family life.
  
  LETS not beat about the bush, VIC is a passionate person and would not enter unless he thought he had a chance, the trouble is the electorate doesnt think he has a hope.
  
  SoI'm just trying to be nice, get VIC to look at HIS previous results
  a disaster.
  If Vic has energies channel them into the many voluntary bodies that would welcome his help.
  
  THE monster raving loony party isn't serious, but VIC is clear(even in latest postings hes in to win)
  It won't ever happen at any level,
  But of course VIC has the right
  
  
  All i'm saying is, VIC study previous elections you have stood in
  look at the results
  
  remember your family also suffers
  
  
  BUT AS IV ALWAYS SAID ITS YOUR CALL
• bern, dover wrote:
  One thing that is clear - the affection in which Vic is held.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  someone actually said to me a year ago, why is it that whenever vic matcham's name is mentioned, people smile.
  
  the person that said this to me is a religious cove and he was at a meeting of "christians together in dover".
  
  it was the last election, and all candidates had been invited to give their views to this special audience.
  
  some of the assembled throng had not heard such language before.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  HOWARD
  The meeting of all the candidates
  VIC and the UKIP candidates looked poor.
  
  
  VIC just banging table but had no real vision
  
  
  UKIP Who had no idea where Dover was when questioned, as he came from Tunbridge wells, and didnt bother 2 turn up for the second all candidates meeting.
  
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Just for the book any funding we get back from the Scarerow Trail weekend is goin to the Kent Air Ambulance.An thank you for your comments I know you mean well, some of you have know me a long Time.
  
  I am still going ahead on my own with my plans for the next time round,and my wife is the best.
  
  Vic Matcham
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  no need for that victor.
  bern has given you the ok to splash out on a slap up meal.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  HOWARD
  Im still waiting for VIC to buy me that pint
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  i do not wish to cast aspersions about our parliamentary candidate, the excellent victor.
  
  sadly, i have heard a rumour that he can peel an orange in his inside pocket without anyone knowing about it.
  you may remain thirsty for some time.
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  howard
  you sure it was an orange?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the word is that when victor opens his wallet, the queen blinks and rubs her eyes.
  
  i am only quoting his lovely wife lesley.
• keith, dover wrote:
  latest issue on gay couples causing bit of stink, whats yuour views?
  do you need the father figure? can gays /lesbians do just a good job?
  
  think that debate will go on
  
  what do you think?
  whats the evidence that they cant?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yes Keith, there is absolutely no doubt about it, children need a responsible father figure as a role model.
  
  There has been plenty of evidence presented that shows the traditional family working best in the bringing up of a child. Certainly there are many good single parents, and same sex couples that do a great job, but much of todays problems are caused by family breakdowns and a lack of good father role models.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Thought you might say that BAZ
  To exclude single sex couples was what I expecte you to say.
  I don't thin we should exclude good single sex couples if thats the life thet choose, and as you say if they do a good jobMany problems don't relate to single sex couples, more to couples of both sexes who hae problems bringing up children.
  
  So why pick on one group(single sex)
  
  My question was what evidence do we have that SINGLE SEX PARENTS are a problem?
  
  
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Keith
  I should be pleased to answer part of your question but first could you give me your interpretation of a Gay/Lesbian relationship I think the answer you give may be a preception as to what you see and not what is reality.
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Not quite sure on where you’re taking this one Keith, I don’t think anyone could deny the stability that is offered from a ‘traditional’ family unit, as Barry has said. Single sex couples can, and do raise children just as well, as do single parents, grandparents and every combination you can imagine. However I do think that there is no coincidence in the fact that societies that maintain a high level of social wellbeing for children are those that still have an emphasis on the concept of family i.e. Italy. Single sex families also meet these criteria so I’m not sure where the point is?
  
  On a slight tangent, still a political thread; at the weekend I got into a conversation regarding voting and friends that would regard themselves with a persuasion to the left (I’m not talking about habitual Labour voters, but true socialists) mentioned that it has become apparent that it is time for a Tory government. This outlook is not based within an alignment to the Conservatives but apathy towards the current administration of our country.
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  DT1
  Morning
  If your saying same sex couples are good as parents(and no one to date has produced evidence otherwise as yet) why xclude them? isn't tha unfair on all the same sex families who do a good job?
  isn't that discrimination?
  do you all support that?
  
  I do understand about family values, and I was brought up in a very strict family unit, but I can tell you you about many family unit (both sex couples) who are unable to copre or bring up children, yet they wont be affected.
  Doesn't that appear a little unfair?
  
  thoughts please
• keith, DT wrote:
  DT
  On your last comment on the political front, im an old lefty, and proud of it and the party I joined some 25 odd years ago isn't the one of today, and I have to accept that.
  But I'v so many elections(last 3 in fact)it was on here labour was going to lose, and they didn't.
  
  I'm sure talking to many people that although this Govt doesn't always help itself, people have long memories of those dreary conservative years, high unemployment, not funding local govt, etc etc
  So im not so sure.
  But like Barryw hes a great conservative supporter as im a labour supporter, which neither of us has ever hidden.
  
  We have still to see like gordon brown said yesterday at PM question time some tory substance, at the moment they promise the world, but cost nothing.
  
  They havnt even to date aid they will do anything different to labour on the 10p rate, yet they complain about it?
  
  Theres no doubt the next general election will be one that is close, and it worries me that it might be a hung parliament then the lib dems who have even less support could hold balance of power.
  
  
  Its worying also all tax credits will go under a conservatie administation
  pension, family, etc etc
  
  hope everyone realises
  but most important is the coinservatives still have to produce policies
  and cost them, cos at moment they are promising the world but they couldnt afford to pay for it.
  
  Anyway gone on to long
  
  hope you have a nice day
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith has made a good point here about there being bad parents of all types.
  
  i get the impression he was lucky in his upbringing, his mum lives 3 doors from me, and though she is nonsense on some things, has a great sense of humour.
  
  single parenting is a different thing altogether.
  two people are needed to bring up just one child in my opinion.
  
  a lady i know works all hours to bring up her little girl, she would never
  go onto the benefits system.
  she has no time to actually play or read to the girl, gets home from work, cooks dinner, washes, irons and all the rest.
  there is no way that she would be able to spend enough quality time with her child.
  
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i meant to type "no nonsense"""
  lucky she does not read forums.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Howard, you are right - it is a hard enough job raising children as a couple, never mind as a single parent. But it has to be said there is less encouragement for people to work at their marriages now than there used to be - there are many people who are single parents through tragedy and circumstances beyond their control, but there are also many who just didn't go that extra mile you need to go sometimes to maintain the relationship and keep the family together.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Interestingly the Labour candidate in the By-Election (see above) was a single mother with 5 kids and I think it worked against her, although it wasnt what caused her losing, that was more to do with the national flaw, but she had some bad publicity as I understand it re the prospect of her going to Westminster and 'abandoning' her 5 kids to Cheshire. Not that she had any intention of abandoning her kids, not at all, but the insinuations were there. Single parents dont play with a level playing field...although a single mother with 5 kids cannot be the all round best option surely.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Blimey where do I start?????
  
  On the bye election, what a disaster for Labour, there will be enquires about the dismal result, and why this happened.
  
  Im sure Mrs Dunwoody senior would be turning in her grave that a conservative now holds her seat.
  I didn't always agree with her, but there is no doubt she was one of those MP's that said it as it was, upset everyone at times, but never frightened to give her opinion, she was also respected by all parties.
  
  On the result, It was a disaster, but i'm sure a lot was a protest against the Govt, and many will return in the general election, once the conservatives decide to at least give one policy they might have.
  
  I think Labour got it wrong with the leaflet on trying to class divide(although i understand the reason) but not being there I can't understand or give reasons why that was authorised.
  It was a mistake, and one that back fired in my opinion.
  
  The days of any party having a safe seat has long gone.
  
  
  On howards issue on parenting, no one mentioned that there was evidence that gay couples are a problem with parenting, but many of both sex or 1 parent families.
  So I say again, why discriminate against gays/lesbians when theres no evidence to say this set of couples are not parenting well, and why just pick on this group?
  If that is a view(the family unit) then barryw and all should also say
  single parents, and both parents where there unable to parent should also be included but i dont agree with that either so wheres the evidence before we condemn them?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well Keith, given the huge and growing number of Conservative policies stolen by Labour (IHT, Aircraft Tax, Non-Dom tax, Immigration points system, Border Policing and most of what was in the 'draft Queens Speech') its hardly surprising that DC is playing things close to his chest. Never fear a lot of eye catching and distinct Conservative policies will be revealed closer to the election that will win wide public support.
  
  This by-election was about more than a protest vote. The scale of the win, the high turnout and the fact that the usual by-elections benificiaries of the protest vote failed to make their mark, demonstrates that. Take into account also that no-one now, after yesterday and the local elections can claim that we are not making inroads in the north, we are on our way back into Government.
  
  In a very tribal seat, where we have never had success before, to turn a 7,000 defecit into nearly 8,000 majority is no mean achievement. This was also not about a poor campaign from Labour, after all Brown tried a £2.7bn bribe and still he flopped.
  
  You might be right and this seat will return to Labour in the General election, after all that is the normal pattern for by-elections. But, you know, I am not so sure about that. Look at the electoral history of the seat, look at the amazing progress the Conservatives have made on the Council there, giving us a firm base. Consider the fact that Gwyneth Dunwoody had a massive (and deserved) personal following. The demographics in the seat have moved against Labour steadily over the years. We were close to winning it in 1983 and have improved our position since, even before yesterday. I would not rule out our retaining this seat in 2010 with some good work from our new MP and the campaign team.
  
  On the more general electoral front Labour have many serious problems. Gordon Brown's leadship is failing and already some MP's are muttering and openly briefing against him. It may not take much for open internal warefare to break out within the year.
  
  The economy is likely to get worse and the likelyhood of a recession is increasing. Indeed talking, as I do, to many businesses I find that things are getting increasingly difficult and some sectors of the economy are now in recession. The housing market is increasingly in difficulty and that bodes badly for the broader economy.
  
  Brown has still a number of self-inflicted wounds to get over. The 42 day detention issue being one. The increased nil band was a 'one year only' bribe and he must address the longer term problem he created. His own Commons performances are an embarressment to his MPs. Even his tv performances are often cringworthy (American Idol was awful, talk about scary!). Much of his Cabinet are second raters who struggle against their superior Shadows.
  
  His problems mount up. You might profess faith, Keith, that he can turn it around but there is no sign that he has any idea how to do it. I think he simply doesnt have it in him. Note how his latest relaunch flopped.
  
  David Cameron, however, goes from strength to strength. Everywhere that Brown is weak, Cameron has strength and has been shown to be the most formidable electoral strategist the Conservatives have had since Maggie and indeed some think he surpasses her in that respect.
  
  Cameron's biggest strength is the team he has around him. Eric Pickles has been credited as the mastermind behind both the local and by-election triumps. Eric is an old 'friend' of mine from Young Conservative days back in the late 80's when we were at opposite ends of the Conservative spectrum. He has really come into his own and all credit to him. Then there are others who have certainly proven their worth.
  
  The Conservatives are reported to be changing strategy from a 'marginal seat' approach to what is termed a 'landslide' approach. Money is being re-directed away from the more marginal seats into those higher up the list that previously were not target seats. That is an indication of growing Conservative confidence. I have some concerns about that myself as we must not get complacent or over confident. Hopefully we will not fall into that trap.....
  
  Things are changing - I have been telling you that ever since DC was elected leader, Keith. Are you ready to acknowledge it yet?
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Ohhh, a quick correction to the last post. It was the late 70's when I was a Young Conservative and Eric Pickles and I were at odds over the direction of the Party (with me supporting Mrs T....).
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Iv always said this is going to be a very close run thing, but I wouldn't put my money on ERIC PICKLES hes the same guy that STARVED local govt of funding, openly admitted he didn't like local govt, and im afraid a leopard don't change his spots.
  
  Thats the worry not new Ideas and the people who caused this country so much damage under the conservatives are still there, and DC is going to use them.
  
  So whilst barryw you would not expect me to agree with you, this election will be close, and as I keep saying once DC comes under scrutiny, and produces a policy that will also be scrutinised is the time the tide will change.
  
  BAZ
  iM HAPPY to say at this time that Labour has a lot to do, but they will, and once people see through the conservatives then the tide will change.
  
  I cant afford a conservative govt, just like many others,
  
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  No-one can afford a Labour Government there is no doubt about that. Once again it will be the Conservatives that will clear up Labour's economic mess.
  
  Sounds like more of the same from you though Keith, all stuff we have heard before. Nothing new just wishful thinking. You clearly have not caught on to the changes that have come about, just like Brown, really.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Just to be boring for a few minutes,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  
  I met Hazel Blears at a conference in Warrington, actually I gave her a hard time.
  
  So did others,
  what was amusing was her husband sat in the corner waiting for her to finish, he's probably used to it, all he attention on her, I did chat to him, nice chap, but i suspect he would rather be at home with his slippers and a nice cup of coffee!!!
  
  Hazel Blears id hold her own, and although I questioned her, she stood her ground. She is a good speaker, and worked hard for, and firmly believes in the direction of the labour party.
  
  Now all the labour party will need to sit down and look again at the direction it wants to go.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  this chap eric pickles, was hethe one thatran bradford city council?
  if so, he got given a safe blue seat near me in the early 80's.
  
  his behaviour nearly turned it into a marginal for the first time ever.
  
  real character though.
  would give victor a run for his money.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  are you sure that the face mrs blears is pulling is one of trying to assimilate things?
  
  to my untutored eye, it looks as though she is trying very hard not to break wind.
  i may be wrong.
  what do other posters think?
• bern, dover wrote:
  I'm with you Howard - and I think she didn't manage not to do the deed, if the smell coming off her party is anything to go by.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well...whatever the state of Hazel Blear's internal gaseous combustion, the sad fact remains that a Labour Party rescued from the ashes of extreme red unelectability by the charismatic Tony Blair, has now found its way back into the same boat again immediately after his departure.
  
  No longer extremely red of course but no longer appearing to speak for any section of the community either, Labour has sadly turned its back on the working classes by a whole series of bad tax decisions which crippled the poorer members of society. This is particularly painful when you remember the song they used to sing at party conferences...
  
  "we'll keep the red flag flying here"
  
  You knew where you were with the Labour Party once, and when Tony Blair came along he made it poptasticly fashionable to be a Labourite. Everyone everywhere, from the high class eateries and drinking houses of London, to Big Franks Transport Caff in Barnsley...all wanted to get onboard.
  
  "Things...can only get better.." went the song
  and they did.
  
  But what now? Gordon, so long a bridesmaid waiting in the wings, disappointingly blew his chance when his turn came at the altar!
• bern, dover wrote:
  Yes, but the fella giving him away was the bridal equivalent of the wicked stepfather or the slimy uncle........
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Whilst not wanting to take this into a class issue, there is no doubt that there are worrying times ahead, the RIGHT of the conservative party are just waiting to pounce, and will be rid of DC as soon as they get a sniff of Govt if he doesn't bring in utra right wing policies.
  Of course its the policies everyone still waits for.
  
  
  Challenged on question time and other programmes on the 10p rate
  the spokesmen/women would he tories do anything different?
  all said WE DONT KNOW
  we are not in govt.
  
  is that good enough? isnt that worrying?
  
  tax credits to go should the conservatves every be the unlikely Govt
  
  Theres lots to lose
  
  Conservatives clearly saying they wont do much different on spending fronts,
  
  HOWARD
  
  YES ITS same Mr Pickles
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - you are living in a dream world. I supposed you have got to keep your spirits up somehow, dream on.
• Guest 643 wrote:
  Well said Barry but I think the phrase "banging your head against a brick wall" is very apt in this case! One only has to read the papers, watch TV or listen to the radio to know that GB is on his way out and that support for his party is at a record all time low. Still - as KS is always saying - time will tell! It sure will lol
• keith, dover wrote:
  BAZ/JACQUI
  Labours down but will bounce back
  been here 3 times before everyone predicted tory win didnt happen
  once DC starts producing his failed policies then people will see through him.
  
  My spirits high BAZ
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Like lemmings of low intelligence we are swallowing whatever the press want to tell us..........the image of GB is smeared, therefore he is smeared in our perceptions. The media present people and events in a certain way - that doesn't mean that is how it is, it just means it's how they want us to see it!!! Let's think for ourselves, chaps!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  OK Bern - think for yourself. I can comment, not from what the papers say, but from what I have seen from a professional point of view, about Gordon Brown and how he operated as Chancellor and now as PM.
  
  His record over matters of personal finance, tax-free savings and pensions and the sell-off of gold. Forget what the newspapers say, I can tell you about his character from that as I know my subject and work in the field daily.
  
  Examples: He says that certain commodities including Buy to Lets can be used by pensions from April 2006. Ahhhh, he changed his mind in October 2005, he also changed his mind over pension term assurance, 6 months after making the changes, he changed his mind over ASP's also within months of April 2006. All of these had 3 years gestation but only at the last minute did ditherer change things.
  
  Taxation of pensions - he was advised not to do it, he was told that it would have serious consequences for pensions. He ignored the advice and went ahead taking £5bn a year from pensions claiming that it would not affect people, the idiot. We told him how much people would have to pay extra into pensions to make up for it, but were ignored and he still claimed on tv people would not be affected.
  
  He introduced a nil band of £10000 for small limited companies. Some sole-traders incorporated as a result. It lasted one year before he changed his mind and imposed Corp Tax on them at full small company rate.
  
  We all know how he got rid of 10% band. He was told the impact over a year ahead of the change and ignored it, claiming up to a couple of days before his u-turn that no-one would be disadvantaged.
  
  He was advised not to sell off gold because it was rock bottom and the price would rise. He ignored the advice and that cost the UK a fortune.
  
  He was told that his Stakeholder pension policy would flop. It was explained to him how people would react. He ignored it - Stakeholders flopped....
  
  He was told that his changes to PEPS and TESSAS would impact badly on the 'savings ratio'. He ignored it. The ''savings ratio' has fallen by a third and it is a particular disaster now we have a downturn.
  
  I could go on....
  
  I think you can see a pattern here.
  
  Gordon Brown has demonstrated a total incompetence, he ignores advice and he dithers. Exactly what the press, many of his his backbenchers and much of the public say about him.....
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Like Bern says sadly we are led by the national media, the times I hear people say what they have read in a naional paper(even if it had no substance what so ever) some believe.
  
  Clearly BAZ your paty at a national level(which you do locally)have decided both before GB became leader and snce to put all the pressures on GB and rightly so.
  
  But out there in the real world, people see hrough it and DC is correct the conservatives still have a lot to do to get people to trust them.
  
  Winning a bye election is one thing getting into govt another.
  when it comes to a protest only labour supporters know how!
  but put them in the same position of putting in a conservative govt, you will see them come back to LABOUR , a lot of them will have long memories, and don't want to go back to those dreary days, nor can they afford it.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Those of you who have a serious interest in politics should take a look at the www.politicshome.com website. It is an unaligned political website that offers links to all the best blogs and newspieces on current politics.
  
  It has two regular surveys: The PH100 which is a survey of 100 political insiders from accross the political spectrum and the PH5000 survey which is a tracking opinion poll among the public. These are regularly updated, daily in the case of the PH100.
  
  Here is an extract of the latest PH100 survey that makes interesting reading:
  
  """"ANDREW RAWNSLEY, POLITICSHOME
  
  A Major Turning Point
  
  The Crewe by-election is a major turning point towards a Conservative victory at the next general election and it will lead to increasing pressure on Gordon Brown to stand down as Prime Minister.
  
  Those are two of the headline verdicts of the PHI100, Britain's most authoritative panel of expert and inside political opinion.
  
  More than two thirds of the panel (sixty seven per cent) think that the stunning Tory win in the Cheshire seat, their first gain from Labour at a by-election in thirty years, is a turning point towards a Conservative victory at the next general election.
  
  This is the overwhelming view across the political spectrum. Left-leaning panellists are heavily of the opinion that it is a turning point and right-leaning panellists agree by an even bigger majority. It is regarded as a turning point by three quarters of the non-aligned panellists.
  
  This is a decisive verdict from the PHI100, which includes MPs from all the main parties, among them senior Ministers and Opposition frontbenchers.""""""""""
  
  If anyone wants to read more take a look at the site. It is well organised and a must view for politicos.
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  just took a look at that article, funny what you can make of figures
  
  
  
  In one survey it said
  
  
  COULD THE CONSERVATIVES DO BETTER
  
  
  17 YES 17 NO
  
  Thats conclusive then BAZ
  
  other days showed the same
  some worse for the conservatives!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  It is a balanced panel, between left and right, after all Keith and that is all that is shown by what you say.
  
  Besides, the interesting bit is how left, right and unaligned agree by 2 to 1 that this Government is done for.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  So in an article
  
  COULD THE CONSERVATIVES DO BETTER
  
  
  it was not clear from your article on views as you gave a very biased slant
  
  as i say it also said in the above article
  culd tories do better
  
  17 yes 17 no
  
  so yes its probably balanced view point on there
  must the above should also be taken into account
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I'm no more biased than you are Keith (ex Labour DDC/KCC Councillor and ex deputy Labour Leader...as you are)
  
  I must say you had to work hard trolling the website to find something to throw back at me and it is pretty weak stuff. Better luck next time keefy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  It wasnt hard it was on first page
  not quite so rosy as i keep telling you.
  
  Yes im a labour man but i don't bore people with how DC aint going to win and evefything he does is wrong
  even though it may be
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Has Gordon Brown been unlucky?
  
  Well here we have a politician who was well respected until a few short months ago. A man of iron fist and sound principles, and his economic history read well. Then crises upon crises hit his premiership and now his reputation has sunk lower than a low down hog.
  
  He made the mistake of bottling the election when everyone was up for it..most tellingly of all, the media, and the media dont like to be thwarted in their buzz for the biggest story of all...a general election. The presses were ready to roll but pfwizzzzz...it all fizzled out like the dampest of damp squibs.The rolling powerful hacks and scribes didnt like it, and their vengeful pen is mightier than the sword and has a long memory.
  
  Then of course Gordon hit the Northern Rock tragedy with billions cyphered away out of the treasury. The American housing crises flattened the global economy and on top of that the cost of oil went through the roof, hitting everyone's family in the pocket. Gas, electricity, followed suit, and now the cost of food is skyrocketing too.
  
  None of this is actually the fault of Gordon or the treasury man Alistair Darling. Maybe they have just been unlucky!? In the wrong job at the wrong time. Maybe its all just down to global phenomena.
  
  However all that being said, their Budget tax adjustments have been badly received...and their 10p tax fiasco was the nail in what was left of their meagre PR coffin!
  
  I see one ray of hope though for a Labour revival, and that's in the shape of Alan Johnson, one time trade union leader and now front running government minister. This guy has a warmth that the public would appreciate. It's all about your leader nowadays....all about your leader.
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  I share a lot of your view up to mr Johnstone
  sadly he wasnt much of a trade union leader
  sold out quite quick when he got into commons
  
  GB is the man
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - You usually make your own luck. Brown did not prepare for the downturn so he is now reaping the whirllwind.
  
  He cannot blame the international situation for his failure to re-pay debt during a period of sustained economic growth, instead he borrowed more and more so there is no room left to deal with the downturn. Consider this, when does debt get re-paid, when things are going well, with good growth, or when thing are slowing down and are more diffficult. Borrowed money has to be repaid sometime, you cant go on forever borrowing more and more.... He wasted 11 years of ecomic growth we had thanks to a benign international climate and a Blair acknowledged 'golden legacy' from Ken Clarke.
  
  His personal misjudgements and errors are too numerous to put down to bad luck.
  
  There is a pattern that goes back to the whole period of Chancellorship. The man was overrated right from the start, he was never as competent as he was billed and his shortcomings are now open for all to see. He no longer has a benign international economic environment and an actor PM 'frontman' to hide behind .
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I promise not to gloat when GB is returned to office
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef you must surely accept that Gordon Brown isnt cutting it. He is rock bottom in all polls. Your glasses are too rose coloured at the moment. All Labour people must face up to it and not get caught out.
  
  He seems to court unpopularity by taxing the very people that might vote for him. He should NOT tax people more in a market already overstuffed with rising proces. That would make a saint unpopular! Now is NOT the time for more tax.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  hold the fort lads
  GB is going to force his way through very soon
  keep the faith
  last thing labour wants is a leadership election
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  our leader makes an interesting point here.
  it is probably true that the presentation of the PM is more important than the substance.
  
  i find this a bit odd, as no-one, other than his or her constituents actually vote for them.
  
  in real life, the chancellor, home secretary and foreign secretary, are much more imprtant to us.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - you will still be saying the same thing the day before election day, with Labour 20% behind in every opinion poll, you will say 'keep the faith, Gordon will win through'. Who knows, you might even be saying it on election night in the Town Hall as the TV reports Conservative gain after Conservative gain !!!!! ......
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  SAID it last 3 elections
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I see Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Chancellor Alastair Darling are off today to Scotland to meet the oil industry to see what can be done about lowering fuel costs. This could be a good move that may benefit all, but sceptics see it as an effort to shift the limelight away from Downing St, because as we know the UK haulage and motor industry are in uproar about costs and are pointing the blame finger squarely at the Downing St door.
  
  " But its not all our fault" say Downing St.
  
  But is it? As we also know for years and years fuel duty has been a glorious cashcow for successive chancellors. Every Budget they whack a few bob on the duty and pray that the gombeen proles out there will hardly notice. But the gombeen proles do notice, and they notice it more and more in a world of rising costs.
  
  There are huge demands for oil now from the new power nations China and India. They have massive populations and will suck up every drop that squelches out from the bowels of the earth. Therefore prices will be forever high...or its beginning to look that way. Chancellors may have to look elsewhere for their tax hikes if we want to stay afloat fuelwise and remain competitive.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  The words are already carved in stone for the demise of this government, what with the latest fuel tax increases it is far too expensive to live in this country. How do they think that we can continually afford the increasing costs to live here, it's the opposite of a tax haven, where do they think we are going to get the money from? I know, the tree at the bottom of our stairs. Crazy is not the word!
• bern, dover wrote:
  Well....I am a socialist, so clearly won't be backing Gordon Brown........
• howardmcsweeney, dover wrote:
  mr brown does not seem to understand what is going on around him.
  
  the meeting today was mainly about future development of oilfields.
  
  that would be about 20 years to make any difference.
  the road tax is the final insult to a lot of people, yes, go for the gas guzzlers, but it is the family saloon that is being hit the hardest.
  
  he is obviously surrounded by useless advisers.
  
  he would do well to bring back the heavyweights that would not act as yes men.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard. What you say is true but you cannot just blame his advisers.
  
  He has a track record of ignoring advice and going his own way, examples, sale of gold at the wrong time, taxing pension funds, various aspects of pensions reform in 2006, stakeholder pensions earlier, PEPs/ISAs, 10% tax band, CGT changes.
  
  I mention personal finance items mainly because I have first hand professional knowledge.
  
  The point is there is a track record here and he is usually detrmined and stubborn enough to do what he wants without listening to expert advice. Hence so many blunders and why he is not fit for a front line political role.
  
  
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Barry
  Am I right in saying that Mrs. Thatcher also ignored her advisors and pressed ahead with the introductio of the Poll Tax thus fuelling one of the largest riots this Country has ever seen.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  that is so true dave.
  
  i put it down to the arrogance of power, mrs t was at the helm for so long and mr b has been as close as possible to the same position for over 10 years.
  once our victor is safely in No.10 things will change.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes I remember very well those awful days of the Pole Tax and indeed Mrs Thatcher, when there was near anarchy on the streets of London. I lived there at the time and I can vouch for those times as some sort of total political rock bottom. It was deeply dangerous as the divisions in society were alarming.
  
  It is extraordinary to me that the Tories still hold Mrs Thatcher up in high esteem. Its not something I understand at all as she singelhandedly led them to being unelectable for at least the last 12 years.
  
  Political leaders do listen to advice..something Howard, our Victor isnt guilty of. Vic clearly listens to no one, which is a tad disappointing.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  To be correct the 'pole tax' was actuall the 'poll tax' and was actually called the Community Charge.
  
  Dave - I dont remember anything about her advisers advising against it. There was of course a lot of debate about its introduction internally but that is the norm.
  
  I was on a panel that recommended changing local government tax from your house to the individual back in the very early 80's. There were good reasons for this as too many people were able to exercise their vote for Councils without having any responsibility for funding them. Representation without taxation can be as bad a taxation without representation in that it encourages irresponsible spending.
  
  Nick Ridley was the Minister who introduced it (in the 87 Parliament) but once he allowed the Civil Servants to get involved they overcomplicated it and messed up what should have been a fairer system.
  
  Even the messed up system Ridley brought in was a lot fairer than the old rates system or the present one.
  
  This, however, is a totally diffferent matter to what I was referring to regarding Brown. He was fully and personally responsible (not just in a Cabinet collective responsibility sense) for all that went wrong in the Treasury and his misjudgements since.
  
  PaulB - Mrs T is rightly revered because despite some mistakes (even our greatest Ever Englishman, Winston Churchill made them...) we all owe her a great deal. The UK was a total economic basket case in the 70's and her reforms changed that around.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Ohhh... A point about the riots. That happened because people who previously were able to freeload on Council Services were suddenly having to pay for them for the first time.
  
  Some of these are exactly the kind of 'ner do wells, for whom law breaking was not unusual, add to that the left wing rent a mob.....
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Barry
  That is one of the most feeble answers that I have read in a long time. Are you seriously suggesting that 100,000 demonstrators were all free loaders and left wing agitators, add to that all the people who were against the tax who didn't demonstrate and a large number of the population suddenly are branded 'spongers'. I don't think so Barry.
  The second point you made was that the basic idea was good but the Civil Service made it unnecessarily complicated. I thought and correct me if I am wrong, the Government ran the Country didn't anybody notice that they had made it unduly complicated and therefore difficult to administer?
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave - we see Civil servants all the time 'gold plating' legislation, particularly EU stuff. A Minister gets faced with a Civil Servant suggesting this and that, try this - ahhm, sir we can solve 'that' problem if we just do this... It happens, its like a slow 'creep' of complexities. Something simple suddently becomes horribly complex.
  
  Some say Gordon Brown is particularly prone to over complicating things, but I am sure that Civil Servants are also partly responsible, but he is more open to it than most.
  
  Nothing unusual there.
  
  As for the riots. Yes. The Poll tax did policitise a lot of people who previously did not have to pay towards local services.
  
  Many of these were those who call on the services most and all had a vote, often used for high spending politicians, knowing they themselves would not suffer the consequences of their vote.
  
  The burden fell on working families and small businesses (pre-national uniform business rates). In many areas (inner cities mostly) a minority of voters actually paid towards Council Services through rates and these were almost always high spending authorities with low levels of efficiency.
  
  There were figures provided at the time that we studied, too long ago now for me to remember them.
  
  Add these to the left wing rent a mob protestors, left wing students, those who just like a 'punch up' and you had the making of the riots....Some of them would have been on the Saturday football terraces terrorising decent football fans as well.....
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Outrageous!!! Clearly there are some people who like a bit of bother and turn up to rallies and protests THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ARRANGED by people who have a belief in the "cause", but to label entire protest groups as layabouts and agitators is not only obvious fiction but also defamation. In the same way that there are some footie fans who like a punch up, but that doesn't mean every West Ham fan is liable to slap you. Get a grip.....and stop this process of denial - there were riots because peple, ordinary people, had had enough and took action.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Take a cold shower Bern and read what I said. I did not say EVERYONE at those protests was a thug of some kind but such people did take advantage and turned these protests into riots.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Doesn't change the fact that ordinary people exasperatedly instigated and ran the protests - whatever spin is put on it and whoever is cited for violence - which is clearly unacceptable, but fortunately the province of the few - the protests and riots were the result of unpopular Government and in particular unpopular leadership and led inevitably to an unelectable party lasting several years and counting.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  just clarify this issue, the blue ladies and gentlefolk introduced legislation
  that incensed the majority of the population.
  a few rioted.
  sensible governments are careful to avoid this sort of thing.
  it cost the tax payer a small fortune in debt collectors running around trying to collect the uncollectable.
• Guest 670 wrote:
  It certainly brought the Thatcher era to an end.
  An era in which over 3 million people at one point had no job.
  An era which saw homes repossessed due to hign interest rates and finally an era which had little regard for the ordinary man in the street.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Indeed.....................................
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, you are forgetting the scale of the challenge that Mrs T had in 1979 and the appalling mess the UK economy was in previously thanks to the last Labour Governments financial irresponsibility. She reversed decades of relative economic decline for the UK. Ted Heath could see what was happening and was aware of what was needed but he U-turned and failed in his 70-74 administration. She stuck to her guns, thankfully, so her medicine worked, it was what is needed.
  
  The recession in the early 80's was a direct result of the mis-management of the previous Labour Government. We had a Labour Government in crisis with 29% inflation, heavily subsidising heavily overmanned inefficient loss making state industries that were kept going as a job for the boys scheme. A Government in hoc to the trade Union, tea and crumpets at no 10 to stitch up their members and the Country. Inflexible Labour markets that created massive difficulties for businesses. The humiliating approach to the IMP for a loan to get us out of trouble. Strike prone and suffering decades of relative economic deteriation. Massively high income taxation that resulted in a brain drain aimed at penalising the rich rather than raise revenue. Closed shops, mass Union meetings. This country was going downhill fast.
  
  It was Mrs T who had the guts to tackle that. There was a cost but it was well worth it and we can all thank her that she did not weaken or we would now all be so much worse off economically.
  
  Overall though the 1979-1997 period was one of unprecedented economic success leaving Blair with what he called a 'golden legacy'. Brown has blown that legacy. It is his errors as Chancellor that discouraged saving and encouraged borrowing leaving families vulnerable and the BofE unable to take the action needed to stimulate the economy. Add that to the fiscal iresponsibility of the last 11 years when we had a benign period of growth in which we should have repaid national debt, but instead borrowed more and more. Brown's legacy is a disaster for all of us.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sorry typo, IMP of course should read IMF.
• bern, fenian wrote:
  It takes more than a couple of unwise decisions to "blow a legacy" - as you point out, governments inherit from prior governments. Blair inherited and perpetuated a "me" culture government - and there we go again, you refer to being "better off" in terms of finance. There are many ways to be better off and although of course we all want solvency and "stuff", there is more to being in government than providing access to "stuff". We all tend to forget the moral and spiritual obligations that a goverenment accepts - besides which, our moral and cultural base impacts directly on a governments ability to manage the books. If the nation is self-absorbed and stuff-oriented it will function differently to how it would if it were values based with a moral back-board.
• dover resident, dover wrote:
  interesting point there bern.
  
  i always think that "standard of living" is confused with "quality of life".
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  that last post was from me, sorry for any confusion.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Well put Bern, Social Capital is far more valuable.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  If the blues still say,"We must sell off our port of Dovor"They will never get a M.P. in here.
  
  I said over lot of years and at all the meetings that I have been at "That the port of Dovor is not for being sold off, never has been and never will.
  The port belongs to the Town.
  
  I remain yours faithfully
  Cllr Vic Matcham
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  quite right victor, the pert of dovor is sacrosanct.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Left wing rascists...........
  
  Has anyone else seen this incredable piece of rascist writing from that pillar of 'pc' socialism Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent.
  
  """"""""""""""""Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks."""""""""""""""""
  
  Imagine if Littlejohn or some other writer of the right was to say something similar about Labour supporting blacks and Asians. There would rightly be indignation and outrage from all around, including 'Yasmin whatever her name is'. There would be accusations of hate crime and all the phoney rage from left wingers we have so often seen before.
  
  The woman is a hypocrite of the worse kind.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I haven't read the whole article but I'm not sure why this is racist?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So DT, if I describe a bloke as a 'Uncle Tom' because he was black and supporting the Labour Party it wouldnt be rascist? Its exactly the kind of language that gets the left all worked up, at least against a right winger....
  
  For her, from a point of assumed intellectual superiority, to claim that blacks and Asians shouldnt support the Conservatives because they are black and Asian, really is disgusting.
  
  In fact because vof her 'assumed' intellectual superiority I would describe her to be as bad as the thugs of the BNP. They at least dont pretend to be anything but thickos...
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Just read the lot and yes, I totally agree that she assumes a position that is nothing short of arrogant.
  
  Forgive me if I am wrong but I interpret the term 'Uncle Tom' to mean someone that takes the side of a group that would be considered to detrimental to their overall cause. In the case of this article; groups such as Muslims (I believe she is Muslim herself) alligning with the Conservatives, because of their disillusionment with a a governments pretending to something it's not. She also mentions Tony continuing the work of Mrs. Thatcher, something I have mentioned before.
  
  I will say that I don;t actually agree with this view and see no reason why alligning to should be detrimental to any religious of ethnic group. If anything I think she is suggesting that the Conservatives would not serve the interests of anyone other than middle white England, which simply isn't true. Her view is seriously dated and out of touch, but I don't feel racist. I think someone should tell her that Enoch Powell was sacked in 1968.
  
  Ooops I'm now late for work!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Labour never learn. So bereft of ideas are they and so desperate to avoid discussing issues their first shots in the Henley by-election are a re-run of their tactic in Crewe.
  
  Jim Hood, a Labour MP (not our local chappie...) has criticised the Conservatives' choice of accountant John Howell, a former partner at City accountant Ernst and Young, to fight the Henley by-election.
  
  Hood said, " Is the Tory Party not running out of super rich male lawyers and accountants yet. What happened to David Cameron's, 'I want the Tory Party to be more representative of the whole country and select more women in winnable seats' pledge? "Tut, tut, this will not do Mr Cameron."
  
  So the grammar school boy who has lived in Henley for twenty years and sent his three kids to local state schools isn't good enough for Hood. Pathetic, utterly pathetic.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  on the local political side, there is much discord amongst the blue people over the extra housing planned for whitfield.
  
  
  our tried and tested fuhrer up at the fort is backing the new build.
  i tend to trust his judgement on big non political issues.
  
  the boy wonder chas, has aligned himself with the wags.
  
  no colette!!!
  this is the whitfield action group.
  
  who will survive this one?
  chas has the better suits and after shave, but does he have the nous to outwit the shrewd PW?
  
  my money is on the council leader.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  As Howard says.."our tried and tested Fuhrer ( PaullyWatkins) is backing the new build" but I have a feeling this has been thrust upon him by government insistence that we concrete over the southeast completely and utterly. As if it isnt a jungle already!
  
  I dont think anyone in their right mind wants to see thousands of houses here on rural land. Has everyone gone mad?? I am very keen on places staying as green as possible and building houses here is an awful prospect. Okay there may be some NIMBYISM in my thinking but it also makes real sense. Why destroy our rural idyll? To what gain??
  
  Clive Meredith, local LibDem Councillor, has been writing some good letters to the newspapers on this subject, stressing for one thing that we cannot have tons of houses without any kind of job prospects to go with them. Repossessions will be rife I would suggest. Of course that is just one aspect of this disturbing plan.
  
  Clive if you are out there looking in would welcome you contributing. No membership required.
• Guest 656 wrote:
  Ah, but these two charming chaps can have a special place at the Forumite Wags table anytime, Howard. lol!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  howard - they may disagree over the Whitfield housing but there is so much more they agree on....
  
  Paul Watkins has the role and responsibility in this respect and PaulB is right, the Government are forcing the issue. That said increased housing is important for Dover's regeneration and where it goes will always be contentious.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the idea of continually building on farming land is dangerous.
  
  we are continually being talked down to about food miles.
  this policy of just building for the sake of it, making flooding more likely.
  we keep being told that the population will continue soaring.
  
  perhaps we should stop it soaring.
  
  our island can only take so many people, the infrstructure is crumbling as it is.
• Guest 648 wrote:
  I have just spent a day in London at a conference.Sustainable Communities.Ian Wright MP gave the opening speech.Yes the government do want to build all these houses however you dont have to build on all green land sites.A lot can be built in urban areas .A lot of talk re flood planes.Of course some rural areas need affordable homes to sustain their communities.The government does not help by closing Post Offices and rural schools and better transport is required.It was interesting to hear the comments from other delegates who came from far and wide.Im a little tired now long day.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sorry to hear that you are tired sue, put your feet up in pencester gardens.
  
  i almost forgot!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Interesting post Sue but the problem is nobody will build affordable homes in rural areas..it never seems to happen and as all rural areas are that bit more desirable, they tend therefore to build expensive homes to make a fast buck. You only have to look at the demand for these locations as seen on those home search TV programmes and you can see the reason why...ie people are willing to pay plenty. Besides cheap homes usually means tacky looking estates so nobody wants that either.. a rock and a hard place.
  
  AS for rural schools and post offices...well yes they are a nice idea in theory, but in practical terms it doesnt work. In one recent report it showed that only 12 people in one week had used one of these post offices..this kind of non-performance across the board means that they are losing £1million pounds a day. It cant be sustained.
• sue nicholas, river wrote:
  I hear what you are saying Paul re Post Offices,however I did speak at the workshop and I think the government of the day have got it wrong..Everyone talks of Community ,failing families ,lack of that neighbour watch out for each other approach.The local shop ,Post Office should be a place where you meet and have a chat.Government have insisted more people should use a bank account ,on line facilities etc.If every time one went into the Post Office albeit for a stamp to post a parcel etc then purchased from the shop then they would survive.People would not be left to die alone or be lonely,children would not be afraid to speak to an older person etc.The community way of life needs to come back.Im going mad at present getting ready for tomorrows Flower Show.Every year my family say "why do you do it Mum"I seem to have wanderd of the subject but have had phone calls to deal with.In essence Government must do its bit to encourage communities to live and work together.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I don’t think it’s the government of the day Sue. This erosion of the notion of community has been going for quite some time now. I am all for elements that provide a focus for community, they can take many shapes and form. Post Offices are one example but not always this obvious, some communities thrive around Public Houses, Schools, Churches and other ‘objects’ that provide a commonality. It is the lack of focus on a collective existence in favor of only worrying about oneself or immediate, that has led us to this point. Functioning communities achieve a better standard of living for everyone involved.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ould grizzled veteran Ian Paisley has been retired from the top job in N Ireland a few days and the new incumbents wife is already up to her eyes in hot water for her extreme views. Yes indeedy.. so 'here's to you Mrs Robinson' for getting it all titsup right from the off.
  
  Mrs Robinson, wife to new leader Mr Robinson, has found the cure for those god help us all nasty misguided homosexuals out there...she says they can be cured of their ill formed lifestyle by going to see her psychologist and she is quite happy to give anyone who wants to take 'the cure' the phone number of her same psycholgist/psychiatrict.
  
  Wow!...how is that for a touch of the dinosaur!! The thought lead balloon springs to mind!
  
  This is what we've had to put up with from Protestantism in Ireland for so long..a section of the community whose leaders were not known for their flexibility and always appeared so sadly lost in the weird biblical ethics of long ago. Trying to shift them forward was nigh on impossible. Fortunately for the people of Northern Ireland some progress was and is being made but you can see the inbred difficulty. Her views have had a lot of support it seems.
  
  Story courtesy of Radio 4 Today programme.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  This sort of comment amazes me. How someone can be so unbelievably ignorant and yet so vociferous is just another example of how MPs are trying to manage society as opposed to represent it. It is remarkable the amount of small minded people that still regard homosexuality as a disease or affliction.
  I have just read the full story and found the ambiguity of this comment by Mrs. Robinson too much!
  
  "I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals - trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,"
  
  I’m not sure that this kind of thinking is just related to Protestantism, but is just as common in the predominantly Catholic Republic. I think this explains why so many young men and women move from traditionally minded rural towns and villages to the terribly European feeling Dublin, giving the city a higher gay population per capita than San Francisco.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB.
  
  Lets not forget the massive amount of Labour sleeze we have had over the past 11 years. This is not something specific to the Tories. In one way the Labour sleeze was worse, Blair was elected on a promise of being 'whiter than white'.
  
  Besides, all is not what it seems in recent events. Labour's dirty tricks department have their finger-prints over all this, trying to divert attention away from Brown's troubles.
  
  Why else would the Spelman issue arise 10 years after it happened? Also the nanny herself appears to have cleared Spelman anyway with her recent statement. Louise Bagshaw has written an interesting piece about this that puts it into perspective. She argues that the still archaeic Commons work times makes it difficult for a woman MP with children to work without a nanny. Therefore she argues that a nanny could be a justified expense anyway. I have no doubt at all that Spelman has acted in good faith throughout.
  
  Some of the other cases are also of rather dubious veracity too. Most are also very trivial and are spun out of all proportion.
  
  The Conway case is an exception - the man is a fool and unworthy. Cameron acted firmly in his case and I am sure he will do over any other justified cases. He will want to show firm leadership to contrast with Brown's dithering.
  
  I think there could be some very interesting developments to this.
  
  I certainly dont expect the kind of thing to happen as did in the case of Mandelson. Blair sacks him, then re-employes him, then more sleeze and Mandelson gets rewarded with a EU Commissioner position. Now that was serious abuse and sleeze and Blair/Mandelson got away with it.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  For those interested you can see what Louise bagshaw said about this here: www. conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/06/the-sexist-accu.html
  
  I have put a couple of spaces in so I can upload it...
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Barry, it was not that long ago that the Conservatives were nicknamed the party of sleaze.
  You mention Mandelson and although I remember some indiscretion regarding a mortgage and a property he bought, I think from Geoffrey Robinson, he was exonerated from any impropriety on the second count by the Hammond Report.
  In any event your claim to fame is Archer and Aitken who both served prison sentences, Conway and jobs for 'the boys', Chichester and his 'whoopsy daisy' and now Spellman with alleged irregularities dating from 10 years ago. Add to these the lesser ones you refer to and it starts adding up to quite a few.
  Still, it does appear that I have found one unwritten Tory policy and that is take the system for as much as you can.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i do not remember mr mantle piece ever embezzling "our" money.
  
  the daily mail(that good old socialist rag) highlighted 4 tories that were into our pockets today.
  
  why do the police sit and do nothing?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard, dave, he was not so much exonerated as given the benefit of the doubt, totally different. How on earth could anyone forget a loan of over £300,000 and not mention it on a mortgage application?
  
  Then there was his little passport matter.
  
  Surely you cannot forget his 'double resignation'?
  
  You might want to refresh your memory. there is an excellent book available that details over 100 matters of Labour sleeze. I dont think some of the more recent incidents are included though...
  
  You can see a copy at this.... www. amazon.co.uk/Little-Red-Book-Labour-Sleaze/dp/1904734162
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i would re-iterate that the "prince of darkness"" never had any of "our " money.
  surely his slimey tricks are not in the league of the euro fat cat tories that
  are plundering our dosh.
  closer to home we have a senior figure that her paid nappy changer doubled up as a private secretary.
  the list will grow longer as investigations continue.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry it was the second incident where the Hammond report exonerated him, in any event as Howard states he did not fiddle public funds as is alleged in the Tory cases I mentioned in my previous posting.
  In the unlikely event that I worked for you and had an expense account whcih you considered to be generous, how would you feel if I fiddled another £15.00 per week? I think in the words of the immortal you would tell me to 'go forth and multiply'.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave. the Hammond report was done within strict boundaries laid down by Blair. Key participants were not interviewed (even the Hindujas), it found no new information and focussed only on what was known. It was long and turgid and was widely regarded as a fudge.
  
  Remember the Hindujas (rich Labour donors) were under investigation for corruption in India and somehow they managed to get their UK passports in 6 months instead of the usual 18 months.
  
  But still why focus so much on that one when there are so many more incidents of Labour sleaze to choose from.
• Guest 670 wrote:
  I am not placing too much focus on Mandelson and I am aware that Labour has in the past been a little sleazy but at the moment the Conservatives seem to be in pole position. The fact is any MP that is found with his fingers in the till should be brought to account.
  The Conservatives as well as Labour should make sure that they are holier than thou before they preach family values to us, I was always taught to lead by example and that certainly did not mean fiddling somebody elses till for my personal greed.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  we seem to be forgetting the important issue here.
  
  the tory boys in yesterdays mail were into the pockets of the tax payer.
  that is criminal behaviour.
  why is not being investigated as such?
• Guest 670 wrote:
  That is the very point I am trying to get across to our friend 'the true blue' but all he can do is carry on about Mandelson who as you quite rightly point out was never caught out for having his fingers in the public till.
  Conservative or Labour they should be investigated, it is our money they are taking and we deserve answers.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i hope that you are not expecting an answer dave.
  
  that would be a triumph of optimism over experience.
  
  if you are into unsolved puzzles, try contacting one of our councillors.
  
  you will have hours of fun.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Perhaps howard one day we might get some cohesive argument from you to back up the points you make and address the issues properly.
  
  A lot of what Dave and howard have said are so obviously wrong it hardly needs a response.
  
  MP's of all parties have been critisised over expenses and many in all Parties have had their fingers in the till. Some genuine errors have been made and some have acted deliberately badly. There is clearly a problem with the system that gives rise to this. That does not excuse the worse abuses and Conway was a prime example of that and he has rightly been dealt with firmly by DC.
  
  The whole point is, of course, Labour apologists cannot defend the Government on its record and only have a few straws to grasp at and they have to pretend that sleaze is a Tory thing.
  
  Well get it clear, Labour have plenty of their own, indeed they have been far worse than the last Conservative Government and are worse as well because of their hypocracy from their claims in 1997.
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Barry
  It is you that will not answer the simple question if MPs are found with their fingers in the public till should they not resign their seat. People did not elect their MP in order that they can fiddle public funds.
  Set the party politics aside, and incidentally I am NOT a Labour supporter and answer the simple question should these people resign?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave. The simple answer is, it depends.... Conway yes, Spelman, no (and I suspect this will be born out by the commissioner's findings...). Different circumstances.
  
  Its easy for an overexicted press to look for a non-story and create one out of nothing. That said, we are seeing what is mainly a pile of trivial bull creatyed by the Labour dirty tricks machine.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Lets now get back on to an issue of political substance. Charlie Elphicke has been writing on Centreright.com about the Governments child poverty figures. Here is what he said:
  
  """Children in grinding poverty hit hardest
  The Government's child poverty targets describe a wide group of children as "in poverty". The result is that the richest of the poor are the focus, while children in deepest poverty get left behind. In the first Labour term, progress was made. Yet today's DwP poverty report shows that in the last five years, the war against child poverty is increasinly being lost. On the Government's "60% median" measure, after housing costs, child poverty has gone from 4m in 2001/02 to 3.9m in 2006/07. On a measure focussed more strongly on the deeply poor (the "50% median") it was 2.6m in 2001/02, fell to 2.3m in 2004/05, yet is now back up to 2.6m. I suspect that the severe poverty measure of the "40% median", could make even more grim reading.
  
  These figures are, of course, before the surge in prices over the last year, the 10p rate abolition and all the other things the Government has done to harm the most disadvantaged in society. So things could get even worse. For any Government these figures would be bad - for a Government that came to power promising to halve child poverty these figures are shocking.""""""""""
  
  Thats what Charlie said... I personally would always question the use of 'relative' poverty rather than 'real' poverty as a measure. Using 'real' poverty you can better target action on those who are really worse off rather than broaden the scope with a target that results in chasing your tail. In a way therefore the Government set themselves up for a fall by using these measures. It is valid therefore to take them to task over failing to meet their own self designated targets.
  
  The best way to defeat poverty is to encourage more wealth creation, boost businesses and profits, creating more jobs (and job security). And doing so without increasing the supply of low paid workers through mass immigration and in so doing keeping wages down. Basically the whole approach to the economy and child poverty by this Government has been wrong headed and was certain to fail As Charlie said, in the first term things went well in this but once their foolish economic policies started to bite that quickly changed....
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Irish are voting in a referendum today on the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty of course is the revamped European Constitution made less contentious and more digestible. There are 27 nations in the EU as I understand it, although I admit Ive lost count, Ireland by constitution have to have a referendum on just about everything and are the only country in the 27 to do so. All others have allowed their parliaments to decide their fate. Not surprising this as it is rumoured to be a complicated document, this Treaty.
  
  The election in Ireland has been hard fought, vicious some might say, with opinion polls swinging either way. Last I heard the 'Vote No' camp was beginning to come out on top.
  
  The European Union has been very good for Ireland so hopefully a YES vote will gallop through on the rails at the end of the day. I myself am all for a close knit Europe with eventually a single currency and dont want an Irish vote to upset the apple cart of progress.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  It says a lot about the Treaty does it not....
  
  Ireland, a country that has financially benefitted from the EU and is very pro the organisation started out with a Yes vote almost considered a certainty.
  
  After all that debate and discussion with this 'Treaty', rather constitution exposed for examination, the pendulum has swung and the vote is now too close to call.
  
  Hopefully the Irish will be wise enough to vote No and save the day.
  
  The corrupt and inefficient EU has had its time and it would be far better for the UK if it collapsed.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Sadly for once I disagree with PaulB. I am just back again from ireland and just about everyone I know there is voting NO. There is so much republican history and historic discussion
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The political world has been stunned.....
  
  David Davis has resigned his seat to fight a by-election on the issue of freedom. He is doing this to point out the way our freedoms have been damaged by this Government.
  
  He is making a form and principalled stand in order to create a nayional debate on this important issue.
  
  That fantastic speech he made yesterday in the House could well be his last but somehow I dont think so....
  
  He will stand without official 'full' backing of the Conservative Party because this is a matter of personal principal.
  
  David Cameron however said this:
  “"""""This is a personal decision for David Davis. He is a friend and colleague and I will be happy to campaign for him in his constituency. I pay tribute to the campaign he has been waging on behalf of the Party on 42 days. But we cannot put Home Affairs on pause and it is my job to ensure that we have a team that’s ready for Government. We remain fully committed to our opposition to 42 days and the new Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve will step up our efforts to fight against it in Parliament.”"""""""""""
  
  This is not the first time a politician has made such a move on a point of principal, the last time was back in the 30's by a Conservative against the policy of appeasment of the Nazis. So there is a precedent.
  
  What is so rare these days is for a politican to place his career at risk on a matter he feels personally striongly about.
  
  We need more like David Davis. I am stunned in admiration at doing something so dramatic at such a time.
  
  He was in the SAS and their motto is 'Who Dares Wins'. He has dared and I hope he wins because this is an important matter. Returning to the Commons his stature will I am sure be enhanced and an important issue highlighted.
  
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it would seem out of all the plethora of nations, only the irish have a full democracy.
  
  not that it matters too much, if they vote no today, they will be forced to vote again and again by the unelected bureaucrats, until they learn the error of their ways.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Sad but true, I think. But I continue to hope otherwise as the alternative is madness...........
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I'm 100% with David Davis on this one. In the back of my mind I keep thinking the is an alterior agenda (exposing the non-representational nature of this failing government) but he is absolutely right to be making this stand for a fundamental civil liberty. The principle of habeas corpus (I think that's spelt right) underpins the beliefs of this country and the relative freedom we are able to live within. Similar to Magna Carta if we start to erode these basic concepts of shared morality, we have nothing left but a dictatorship (or god forbid absolute monarchy).
  
  On top of this to have such an important decision made by such a marginal majority of select individuals is madness. The apathy so prevalent amoungst the electorate today is totally valid when we see our 'democratic' system in action. This government, and in fairness previous ones aswell, have done a very poor job of representing the people of this country, in favour of 'managing' their behaviour attempting to make us fit the system, instead of the other way round!
  
  David Davis is making a great stand here and good luck to him.
  
• Guest 648 wrote:
  I agree whole heartedly with David Davis.Our basic liberties are slowly being taken away from us.He is a man of principle and he was my choice for leader.Many years ago i stuck to my principles and the promised chain of office was not given to me.I do recall one Councillor saying Sue Nicholas will never be bought.Pity we donot have more people who stand up for what they think is right.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  What I find interesting is the contrast between the 'Westminster village' reaction and that in the country.
  
  The internet provides the means of an instant assessment of opinion. After his announcement it was astonishing how so many people, right, left and centre were expressiong support for such a principalled stand. By contrast most 'scribblers' were much more sceptical and focussing on what they imagine (with no evidence to back it up) Tory splits. In addition they were saying how much DC did not approve, running stoies of rows and such like. The ground was cut from under their feet very quickly though with the statement from DC (I copied it in my earlier posting) stating how he would be campaigning for DD. I see that this point has been ignored by many papers.
  
  What the public see is different. It's a man who has strong feelings and convictions acting on a point of principal. The Shadow Home Secretary in a party riding high in the polls and who is likely as a result to achieve a life long ambition, places all that at risk, for a principal.
  
  People do not expect that from politicians any more, how sad is that!
  
  I do not believe that there is any great split with DC, neither do I believe that the short term impact of taking pressure off Gordon Brown will damage the Conservatives. I do feel that the long term effect of this will be positive, it will chime well with the Conservative theme of smaller Government and will act as a springboard for that.
  
  LibDems, not surprisingly, decided not to fight against DD's liberarian agenda by placing a candidate. Labour I suspect will make excuses not to place a candidate but in so doing will be characterised as being afraid of the fight. This will have been considered by DD who is no fool and someone (Kelvin MacKenzie) will step forward to fight the election and in so doing will help provide the platform that DD needs.
  
  Because of his principalled stand people will listen to him. He will attract attention to a cause that is close to his heart and is often by-passed during General Elections. This happening at the beginning of the media silly season will produce the column inches. Ultimately I believe that while a gamble, it will pay off in favour both of DD and the Conservative 'small government' agenda....
  
  He is to be admired, placing a cause before his personal ambitions.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  In respect of the other interesting issue.
  
  """""""""""""This from RTE:
  
  Early tallies in the Lisbon Referendum count from constituencies around the country are showing a very strong showing by the No vote.
  
  The No vote is strong in many rural areas and in working class districts of cities, while middle class areas appear to be less supportive of the treaty than had been anticipated.
  
  AdvertisementThe early trend is all one way - against the Lisbon Treaty. However, it must be stressed that these are only tallies, and that the result could be tighter than indications so far."""""""""""""""""""""
  
  A result apparently is due this afternoon, 2pm to 3pm.
  
  If we get a No vote I will never tell an irish joke again - not even about you PaulB.....
  
  OK - The EU will try to get around it, we all know about the contempt they have for democracy. As long as the buy us time to get a change of Government thats fine by me.... Then we can kill this disaster of a constitution once and for all.....
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Further to the last post regarding the referendum. It seems a No vote is increasingly likely. Most consitituencies are declaring No wins by higher margins than expected 43% to 57% in one. The Times has already called for the No campaign.
  
  If a country that has historically been proEU provides such a result after close examination of the Treaty then what would happen in places like the UK and Denmark?
  
  Good old Ireland.....
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well Bern called it right..the No Vote romped home in what looks like a relatively easy win after a tough campaign. I'm baffled and befuddled myself. Surely the Irish would have been hugely supportive of closer ties with Europe, thought I, after all its a country that's benefitted very well from its EU commitment with a 'Celtic Tiger' economy thriving and so forth...but..
  
  There's no accounting though for the vagaries of the electorate. No wonder other nations wont touch the referendum process with a bargepole.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  that made my day, one nation out of 27 allowed to express an opinion and look what happens.
  
  the french and dutch rejected the same thing so were not allowed another chance to express their views.
  
  the boss man at the commission, a mr barosso, said that other nations should carry on ratifying the treaty.
  
  work that one out, the idea is that if one country rejects the treaty, then it is dead in the water.
  
  sounds like this chap, who we know nothing about, is trying to pull a fast one.
• Barry Williams, Pencester wrote:
  paulB maybe when they had a look at this Treaty properly they didn't like it.......
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  And where is the UK referendum.......? It is of deep concern that, despite the Irish No and the legislation that says ALL member states must ok it to be ratified, all the other states are being instructed to ratify anyway. Where does this, it has to be said wonderful, show of voter power leave us if it will be ignored and trampled by the EU? Is this an indication of why the Irish voted No? Is this a real indication of the arrogance of the EU?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bern
  this mob have acquired the power of the third reich, without ever invading poland.
  
  on a more serious note, the boss man gave a press conference this evening.
  
  i have never seen a worse syrup on someones head before.
  
  it seemed to edge forward every time he needeed to stress a lie.
  
  that label hanging off "made in taiwan, dry clean only" was a bit of a give away though.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  That has to be sad in a way do we not isolate by always saying no although have to say do not understand the treaty, seems a very complicated document.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Howard - I was about to say well spotted, but truly you are right......the deceased on the head is a lesson to us all........
• hiward mcsweeney, dover wrote:
  i have more bad news to impart.
  
  his first name is manuel.
  he must harbour ill feeling from the seventies, being chased around that hotel dining room by that sadist.
  
  on a light hearted note, the french and german leaders have said that the treaty ratification goes on.
  they might just as well have said that a nation of 4 million is not worth listening to.
• bern, dover wrote:
  France and Germany pursuing their own agenda regardless of the wishes of other neighbouring countries? Surely this is unprecedented........?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  not like those two is it, only a cyncic might think deutchland would back the old world agricultural base of france, in return for guaranteed sunbeds.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Later this week you will find out about that phone call from Mr Elphicke to me lasting well over 10mins alot was said, a fine out if I am a true blue and what plans have been made or not about the next 2years and if I am standing again.
  
  I remain yours faithfully Vic [m]
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i am shocked to read that vic, does this mean that i have been dumped as your campaign manager?
  perhaps if i got a new haircut and a suit from burton's we can work together again.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Howard I said IF NOT WILL you will have to wait till I post about it later this week but at this time I could still stand with my own funding and that could still be on the cards even if I stand along side the blues things do change and I could find myself on my own what will happen will happen but no way will I change the way I think or act I love what I AM DOING, anyway i am off to bed now,
  
  Vic [M]
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  David Davis today on his surprise decision....(extract)
  
  """"My conduct may seem eccentric in the eyes of some - but my motive is plain and simple. I have deliberately embarked upon an unorthodox course of action to dramatise the damage being done to the country I love, the mother of democracies, by the Government's cavalier disregard for the liberties we have fought for down the centuries.
  
  Plans to lock up terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge are but the latest in a long line of repressive and intrusive measures visited on this country by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. To take one example, there are now 266 state powers allowing officials to force their way into your home. Six hundred public bodies have the authority to bug phones and emails and intercept the post. And God help you if you put out the wrong kind of rubbish or attempt to get you child into one of the few schools not ruined by a decade of Labour government. Gordon’s neighbourhood spies are watching. """"""""""""
  
  For a long time, whatever the opposition has said, too few people have sat up and taken notice of these issues DD is highlighting. Hence this gradual drift away from our traditional freedoms. DD has my full support on this.
  
  It seems that over the weekend a media retreat has started from the first reactions of the Westminster Village. More thoughtful articles and editorials have been written in a range of papers providing a much more balanced and insightful view of what DD has done.
  
  DC has said clearly that he will campaign for DD. Two Labour rebels who share DD's concerns have also declared support for him. A Gulf War hero has also declared support (Col Tim Collins). The latter is particularly important because of the absurd Labour claims that to oppose 42 days is to be sooft on terrorism.
  
  This issue is setting itself up for being a huge problem for Gordon Brown and as I said chimes with the Conservative theme of 'small government'. I am certain that there will be more interesting developments in this story.
  
  if Labour dont put up a candidate to defend their stance they will look 'chicken' already their failure to formally declare their position is looking like more Gordon Brown dithering. Another problem for them, rumour has it that the Labour candidate selected to fight DD is a rebel, an opponent of 42 days......
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I am perhaps not clear on one point below. The Labour candidate I mention is the one selected to fight DD at the next Genral Election.
• Guest 691 wrote:
  I find a tragic irony in the Eurosceptic argument for a "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Finally we are presented with a document that streamlines this creaking organisation, guarantees nationstate sovereignty, introduces measures to force financial accountability, transfers decision making powers from the unlecected Commission to the elected Parliament AND on top of that gives the UK unprecedented opt outs and vetos YET the Eurosceptics just want to give the EU a kicking.
  
  It's pathetic.
  
  It reminds me of the classic "socialist debate" - revolution versus reform. Is it worth taking part in the electoral process and trying to make the society we want from within the estabishment, or is it better to overthrow the ruling classes in a revolution?
  
  The Eurosceptics have guaranteed another ten years at least of ineffective operation of the EU in favour of a revolution (withdrawal) that will never happen, ather than reform it from within.
  
  Shame on them. We know who to blame when we hear of the next bendy banana fiasco and I'll gve you a clue - it ain't those that voted YES in Ireland.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Matthew
  
  The constitution actually transfers an unprecedented amount of power away from national parliaments. Among other things it establishes an EU President and a Foreign Minister while threatening our permanent place on the UN Security Council. It is a turgid and complex document as is most EU legislation and it seems that even the highly proEU Irish, after great debate, by a wide margin thought enough is enough.
  
  This is only needed because of the way the EU has taken upon itself a much more hands on interfering role in all our lives.
  
  If it pulls back from its interfering ways and reverts to a trade agreement, such as I was in favour of joining, then the Constitution will not be necessary.
  
  Better that the EU collapse than be sucked further in.
  
  I notice that you say nothing about the anti democratic and autocratic ways of the EU. They care nothing about democratic will and just want to achieve their ends whatever the will of the people.
• Guest 691 wrote:
  I dont want to get sucked into a full scale debate because we've done it to death before and I think you've quite elegantly backed up my post anyway. Regards the "constituiton" (as you churlishly insist on calling it) being unnecessary if the EU was a mere trade agreement - do you actually believe that or are you just clutching at straws!? All organistions require a rulebook which explains how it functions or is governed - whether that organisation be the Labour Party, DCAL, The United States of America, Oxfam etc... or the EU (in any form).
  
  On a related note, I've just got back from a stag weekend in Brighton, spent largely with people I did not know beforehand. We were in 'Spoons watching it on TV when the result of the Irish vote was declared. Even those among us that would have voted "No" agreed that the Treaty was at least a step in the right direction with many positive qualities - and this was before I'd had a chance to add my tuppence.
  
  Unscientific, I know, but a sample size of 10 randoms isn't bad. Whether or not you like the EU, the fact that this Treaty would have cleaned up many of the issues Eurosceptics bleet about is really beyond debate. On the whole, people that vote "Yes" or "No" are not ratifying or rejecting a treaty which they have carefully considered, but rather voting on related issues or along party lines.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  mathew
  
  are you in favour of the european people having a voice in this treaty?
• bern, dover wrote:
  The people have spoken and the europoliticians are not listening. This is a message about the Euro view of democracy........and I don't like it.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bern and howard you have hit the nail on the head. The EU hates democracy and the only way they can push their project forward is by ignoring or preventing any kind of real democracy.
  
  The sooner this organisation falls apart the better, it will happen, its just a matter of time.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  It is rather long but I do think William Hague has spoken well on the Treaty issue so I reproduce a fair chunk of what he said here.....
  
  """""""""""""""""" "The Irish referendum was an inspiring example of democracy in action. People say that there is a disconnection between the EU and its peoples. Thursday’s vote was proof that when you give people a real say on the EU they respond in vast numbers. Turn out was higher than in any European election held in this country.
  
  It was also a courageous vote. Threats were made that Ireland would suffer if they voted ‘no’ but that did not deter the Irish from making their own decision on the Treaty..........
  
  ................Following as it does the French and Dutch rejections of the original Constitution, a Treaty that was, in the then Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern’s words, ‘ninety per cent’ the same as the Lisbon Treaty, is it not now clear beyond doubt that there is profound opposition among the peoples of Europe to the substance of this Treaty?
  
  Given that no one would ever call the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland anti-European is it not now clearer than ever that it is absurd to describe as anti-European disagreement with a Treaty that further centralises power away from Europe’s nation states towards remote institutions?
  
  The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the result had to be respected and that ‘there can be no question of bulldozing or bamboozling or ignoring the Irish vote’ and we very much agree with that, but isn’t that exactly what he and the Prime Minister are doing by pressing on with ratification in this country?
  
  If that is the Government’s position why was one paper briefed yesterday that the Prime Minister ‘is privately ready to sacrifice the Lisbon treaty’? If that is the Government’s true position why won’t ministers say it? Instead of trying to have it both ways why can’t we have some clarity from this Government?
  
  Did not a previous Labour Foreign Secretary set out the only right course for this country yesterday when he wrote: ‘by any conceivable test of democratic procedure, the House of Lords should vote to put Treaty ratification on ice ….................
  
  ..........And isn’t the Czech Prime Minister right to say that the ‘Irish no [is] no less serious than the previous French and Dutch noes’? So why when after those referendums did the then Foreign Secretary come here to announce that the ratification of the Constitution was suspended has this Foreign Secretary come here to announce the opposite? Is the message that in today’s EU small countries don’t count?
  
  Shouldn’t this Government show some true leadership in Europe and state plainly that Britain will:
  
  Suspend ratification in this country immediately;
  Give a clear message at Thursday’s summit that this Treaty is finished and
  Make the fundamental point that no lasting political institution can be built in democratic societies without the peoples’ consent?
  Isn’t that what real respect for the referendum would mean?
  
  And is it not now essential that all preparations for implementing the Treaty, including on the European External Action Service, are now suspended and that the EU takes no action that is not legally provided for under the current Treaties?
  
  Does the Foreign Secretary agree that respecting the result means not asking the Irish people to vote again?
  
  Will he undertake on the Government’s behalf that they will take no part in any bullying of Ireland?
  
  And would it not be extraordinary for the Irish to vote twice on this Treaty when British voters haven’t had the chance to vote once?
  
  The Foreign Secretary says ratification here must proceed so there can be a ‘British view’ on the Treaty. But isn’t the reality that this Government has not yet spoken for the British view?
  
  If the Government really wanted to find out the British view............
  
  ...............keep the promise this Government solemnly made at the last general election to call a referendum in the United Kingdom, a referendum which would assuredly tell the brave people of Ireland that in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty they are by no means alone.”"""""""""""""""
  
  Do you agree with William Hague Matthew, if not why not?
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  hague has always had a shrewd brain, never worked why he got the "et tu brutus" treatment.
  
  just one thing he seems to have forgotten on this, BOTH major parties are backing this nazi style solution.
  
  no-one at the top is accepting any sort of responsibility, they act as of it is all too much to worry our pretty heads with.
  
  mr sarkozy on his visit to our shores publicly thanked mr brown for avoiding a referendum.
  the sheer arrogance of someone in power saying that his people are too thick to understand serious matters.
  
  mrs merkel is taking the same course in her country.
  
  what i find interesting in all this, is that the chap in charge of the czech republic, who should be doffing his cap at all the money going into his country, has stood firmly behind the irish public, and made reference to the arrogance of the EU masters.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Well put Howard and Barry.
  
  EU democracy is an oxymoron surely ?
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Democracy only works when the politicians get the result they want. If there ever was a more pointless election/referendum then the Irish one was it. There isnt a european 'mandate', if that the right word, for a NO vote..they simply dont know what to do about it. The only thing to do now therefore is to ignore this No vote. So the Irish went through the process for nothing and all it accomplished was an indigenous disgruntlement with the European Union that wasnt there before.
  
  All along, until the campaigning started properly, a Yes vote would have been comfortably expected in Ireland. I myself was sure of it...but then once you give the people the choice they will inevitably vote the way they are not supposed to. Honestly you cant expect the wider population to always know whats best for them!
  
  Lets face it...if you gave the populace a wider vote on everything we would still be in the dark ages..we would still have the death penalty, still have pounds shillings and pence, still have lbs and ozs and so on.
  
  Some things are just best left to be decided by parliaments and elected politicians..how many of those Irish voters know whats in the Lisbon Treaty anyway. They digest what they see from the mouths of politicans on TV and vote accordingly. The EU needs a blueprint, a set of rules, as Matt says below even the lowliest organisation needs same, so where's the big problem.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - William Hague IS the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Conservatives so he is speaking for the Conservative Party officially. He has 'forgot' nothing. The Conservatives are these days Eurosceptic to the core and make no mistake will want a diffferent relationship with the EU. We are pro-referendum, anti Euro and want the repatriation of powers. Please dont tar us with the same brush as Labour. We have learned from the past.
  
  PaulB I see you dislike democracy then and people should have no right to determine their future, I see.... Adolph and Joe would agree with you.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Clearly a referendum on every little decision would be foolish, and there are some issues for which wiser or more knowledgable heads should be accountable. However, to hold a referendum and then ignore it, or to expect various diverse nations to agree, or to try to govern such a diverse populace not only from a distance but with poor insight into the cultures and no respect for diversity is even more foolish. The wider population is growing concerned with and tired of an often unelected, often remote and disconnected body attempting to divine what is right for all of us. It doesn't make sense, doesn't feel right, and is unpopular.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bern a referendum is clearly a very flighty and unstable instrument of democracy..people use 'em to give the government of the day a good kicking. It has much more in common with a By-Election rather than say a General Election and as a process it is not much loved by the various governments here in the UK..or indeed anywhere.
  
  Take an example..
  a much loved little girl is hit by a truck in a small village ( or a small country) Two days later a referendum is held. Should we ban trucks? Massive Yes vote ensues.
  
  Six months later with no food in the shops because there are no trucks, no oil and petrol, no anything else... Another referendum is held on the same issue. Should we ban trucks? you get a massive No vote.
  
  The same vote but a totally different answer.
  
  A referendum is too prone to the huge vagaries of the most recent social issue or story.You get a different result on a wednesday than you do on a saturday! Ask anyone in Ireland if they want to actually leave the European Union and my feeling is 80% would say No. Did they realise they might have to though, by voting No..probably not.
  
  BarryW it is still democracy in action to have your elected representative decide for you. Thats the way the other 26 countries in Europe are doing it so they are surely not all anti-democratic.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Just one little point I failed to make about the little example in my last post. The population clearly needed someone to guide them through at a difficult time, to make the decision for them, as voting for the first example of banning the trucks was essentially foolish, although it captured the mood at that time.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are being incredably patronising PaulB.
  
  The simple fact is this.
  
  In Ireland the Yes campaign out spent the No campaign by 10:1
  
  The campaign started with a clear majority for a Yes vote and virtually the whole establishment in favour.
  
  After weeks of campaigning and that huge inbalance in favour of the Yes campaign, as the people of Ireland learnt more and more about the treaty, the polls swung steadily against the Yes campaign.
  
  This was a sophisticated and intelligent electorate who simply did not like what they learnt. They turned out in huge numbers to vote against.
  
  Who knows, if you was in Ireland and were bombarded by the Yes campain even you might have changed your mind and voted No.... Remember 10:1 was the proportions by which the Yes campaign outspent the Nos, the Yesses had all the advantages and they still lost.
  
  The European project is fatally flawed and can only be progressed by ignoring the democratic will.
  
  This vote was nothing to do with anti-Government sentiment, particularly when the whole establishment were in favour.
• Guest 691 wrote:
  Hilarious Barry.
  
  If the result had been a 3 and a but points the other way i doubt you would be praising the intelligence and sophistication of the Irish electorate!!
  
  Better than that you are just plain wrong. The newly coronated Irish Prime Minister has inherited similar poll ratings to that of ours, and many opposition parties, including Sinn Fein, campiagned for a "No" vote. So if your premise is that
  
  a) It wasn't an anti government kicking (how long have Fianna Fail been in now?)
  
  and
  
  b) The establishment were all in favour
  
  then you are spectacularly wrong on both counts.
  
  
  How can we trust any of your other analyses when they are based on such wrong premeses? Also the idea that PaulB is in the same leaue as Adolf and Joe is an outrageous hyperbole and you should and if I was Paul I'd deand an apology. IRONICALLY it was the fascists of Europe like Mussolini that used referenda so well in the past to subvert democracy.
  
  Does that mean Franco and Benito would approve Barry et al!? Of course not.
  
  
  ***
  
  
  In answer to Howards' question - I think it is right that each memberstate should have a say, but a referenda is a silly way to decide on this particular issue. If that makes me arrogant or undemocratic in some people's eyes then so be it - but I totally disagree with them if they do think that. Paul has tried to demonstrate why referendas are usually flawed. The politicos know the document inside out. Joe Public does not.
  
  There is no way a UK referendum would actually answer the question put before the electorate. The answer would be "No" because people don't like the EU, and NOT because they disagree with the Treaty. AND ironically the treaty would fix alot of the general grievences people have that cause them to not like the EU.
  
  You agree with that much I hope.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Matthew, Matthew Matthew....the two main parties and indeed the bulk of the Irish establishment were indeed pro a Yes vote. I would not call Sienn Fein part of the establishment, remember that for many years they were the spokesmen of the IRA who were as big a threat to Eire as anyone else!
  
  You cannot get away with the fact, however you try to dress it up, that the Yes vote were well ahead at the beginning and they spent 10 times as much money on their campaign than the No vote.
  
  With all that exposure to this Constitution, disguised as a Treaty, the more the Oirish read about it the more they swung against it.
  
  Annother week of campaigning and the Yes vote would have disappeared down the plug-hole....
  
  The arrogance of the EU towards ordinary people will be the downfall of it.
  
  It may suit your political objective to be part of a Soviet Socialist European SuperState but very few will agree with you. Remember what happened to the last one...
• bern, dover wrote:
  PaulB - I haven't disagreed with you - I also feel that there are occasions when a "wise man" approach is needed. But your view of the general public is poor. There are indeed many eejits out there, many political numpties, but that doesn't bar them from a vote or an opinion. It just measn we ned safeguards and safety nets. For instance, I don't believe a yes vote for capital punishment would be a good vote, and to continue your example, it is likely that there would be a yes vote for capital punishment if it was polled a few days after a horrific child murder. However, it isd unlikely that there would be such a poll - one of my points is that, having held the referendum the europoliticians have effectively stamped on it and totally mis read the feelings and wishes of many people. I do not want to be run or governed by people so out of touch with me or with us, and who clearly don't feelt he need to listen. AND, I do think there are many people in Eire who would either wish to leave "europe" or couldn't give a damn!!!!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  two things that are never seriously debated in this country are the EU(as opposed to europe) and capital punishment.
  therefore kneejerk reactions on both subjects are par for the course.
  
  we have all sort of straw polls, including matt's drunken night out.
  
  interesting that we had one from yougov today.
  
  14% were in favour of the treaty, much more importantly about 30% were dont knows.
  i have many friends and acquaintances in other countries on the mainland, all have serious doubts about what is happening with them being consulted.
• marek, Dover wrote:
  Press release
  
  Tory Party chairman Caroline Spelman will face a sleaze inquiry over her use of MPs' expenses to pay a nanny, it was revealed.
  Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon said the "exceptional" circumstances meant a full inquiry should take place.
  A statement from his office said: "Having carefully considered the matter, the Commissioner has recommended to the (Standards and Privileges) Committee that exceptionally he should conduct an inquiry. The Committee has accepted that recommendation."
  It emerged earlier this month that the Meriden MP paid Tina Haynes to look after her children and do secretarial work for a "short term period" after her election to Parliament between 1997 and 1998.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i suppose that plenty of children's nannies double up as secretaries to
  government ministers?
  
  
  my heart went out to our senior mp's today, they desperately need a rise to £75,000 a year to supplement their expenses.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Brown and some of his Minister insist on claiming that Britain is well placed to weaher the downturn. But they are isolated and you would be hard put to find any financial expert who agrees with them.
  
  Now we read this in the Guardian....
  
  """"""""""""""May public finances worst on record, Kathryn Hopkins guardian.co.uk, Thursday June 19 2008
  
  The government's deficit plunged to the worst May number on record last month, the Office for National Statistics said today, as tax receipts slowed sharply.
  
  The ONS reported public sector net borrowing of £11bn last month, £2.4bn worse than in the same month last year. It was the lowest May figure since monthly records began in 1993 and was the second worst monthly figure ever.
  
  For the first two months of the 2008/09 fiscal year, the shortfall was £12.7bn, up from £8.4bn last year.
  
  The public finances have moved deeply into the red in recent years as the government has boosted spending faster than tax receipts. Many economists warn the situation is going to get a lot worse as the economy slows down...............""""""""""""
  
  To put it simply, this exposes Browns claims as delusional.
  
  The fact is the Government have no slack, they have no room to stimulate the economy in the way they should, with tax cuts, without making large cuts in public expenditure.
  
  Because they wont cut public spending we will be sufffering all the more in this economic downturn over the next couple of years and domestic inflation (on top of the underlying raw material price rises) is set to soar even more than is has.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it was good to see our prime minister in saudi arabia in direct discussions with the king.
  
  looks like he has made his point about the benefits of lower barrel prices to the oil producers.
  
  maybe he is at last feeling his way around now and marking out his style.
• kEITH, Dover wrote:
  Barry
  Not for the first time having read your comments about paulb posting do i find your comments distasteful.
  
  Just because Paulb may disagree with you(and most posters and ordinary folk do) doesn't mean you should class them in line with Adolph or such people.
  I think if you want to have any credibility you should apologise to paulb who has been restrained in postings/replies.
  otherwise you are in danger of putting the forum through political in fighting and end result could be big fall outs and the forum having to go.
  
  You have stated before how good this forum is, and I would humbly SUGGEST you apologise to Pauland think before you make such postings
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. I am sure that Adolf and Joe would agree with many things you or I say as well as PaulB's view of a united Europe. You would, for instance, agree with Adolf over his views on fox hunting, he banned it in Germany. Any vegetarian will find fellow feeling with him on that subject too.....
  
  We may not like to think that we could share views on some topics with these monsters and would prefer to demonise them, but the reality is we do....
  
  What is most important, however, is what we disagree with them over and I certainly would not associate PaulB, you or myself with the evil side of their characters and have not done so.
  
  So why should I apologise for making such a point but then I suspect you did not read what I actually said and placed your own interpretation on it, not uncommon.
• keith, barryw wrote:
  BAZ
  because you made the posting clearly to give the very impression that has upset many posters, but i would like to thank Paulb for not reacting to such postings,
  and hope the tone gets better soon
  Paulb you are very restrained on such postings and i hink you need to keep a close eye on them
  You will recall we got here before and very personal attacks stated through them, Barryw obviously feels he is above the forum which is sad im here for the forum and its survival, shame barryw has taken the line that he has, all the worse for the forum, and even less posters because of it.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  oh Keith. I could get quite personal towards you in response to that but I resist the temptation.
  
  Do you know what personal attacks really are?
  
  The only people I have attacked are Stalin and Hitler by describing them as evil and monsters.
  
  Perhaps you have trouble with the English language or perhaps to just like to deliberately create incorrect impressions of what is said.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i never knew that the fuhrer(the original one) banned fox hunting.
  
  mind you, he always gets a bad press, never hear the nice things about him.
• bern, dover wrote:
  I love it when you make me laugh..........
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  A great animal lover and veggie was Hitler, howard!
  
  Thats why I love my meat so much!!!!!!!
• bern, dover wrote:
  It's just offal!!!!!!!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Paulb
  wasn't john major the conservative PM
  oh dear no wonder they kept it quiet
• bern, dovre wrote:
  Yes, dear old Bob must be quaking.....no "Sir", no cricket.....it must be only a matter of time before he caves in and stops being a ba*t*rd dictator killing, maiming and abusing millions. We certainly know how to confront these blaggards in the Commomwealth.....
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  By the way - has anyone else sen the item about a greengrocer having to destroy more that 500 Kiwi fruit because they did not conform to EU regulations.....apparently they were a millimetre or so too small.........don't get me started..........
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  what with mr mugabe losing his knighthood for his behaviour, our baz will
  have to take that on board, should he wish to retain his aristocratic titles.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bern
  that about sums up the great monolith in brussels.
  
  a consignment of perfectly good food having to be destroyed to comply with a regulation about size and weight.
• Bern, fenian wrote:
  I am merely grateful there is no regulation size and weight for people.........I would stand no chance........
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bern, Howard and I can certainly agree over the EU farce.
  
  Back to domestic politics.
  
  Labour utterly humiliated in last nights by-election coming fifth with their vote in meltdown. The LibDems were also rans as well, their normally efficient by-election machine came off the rails. here is the result.
  
  John Howell (C) 19,796 (57%, +3.5%)
  Stephen Kearney (LD) 9,680 (28%, +1.8%)
  Mark Stevenson (Green) 1,321 (3.8%, +0.5%)
  Timothy Rait (BNP) 1,243 (3.6%)
  Richard McKenzie (Lab) 1,066 (3.1%, -11.7%)
  Chris Adams (UKIP) 843 (2.4%, -0.1%)
  Bananaman Owen (Loony) 242 (0.70%)
  Derek Allpass (Eng Dem) 157 (0.45%)
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  oh, I believe that the last time one of the major parties came fifth in a by-election was 1976 (Labour again)....
• Roger , Dover wrote:
  Great news there Barry, thanks for letting us know.
  
  On the Mugabe front, I don't think taking away Mugabe's gong will make any difference to his behaviour one iota. He is still going ahead with the elections today (a sick joke), a vote where he has intimidated and killed the opposition.
  
  His various government departments organise terror campaigns in the rural areas and people only vote for him so they don't get maimed or killed.
  
  Perhaps Nelson Mandela's speech of condemnation may make the neighbouring states, including South Africa wake up and stop him.
  
  Thabo Mbeki has proved to be an extremely weak man, scared of making any criticism of Mugabe - has Mugabe got something on him ?
  
  Almost 50 years ago, Harold Macmillan's speech about "The Winds of Change sweeping through Africa" was very significant because after that, everyone wanted democracy - they may have been better fed, better housed, better medical facilities, better education, better everything under white rule, but they didn't have the vote.
  
  Majority Rule turned out to be "one man, one vote - one time". Corruption and government backed terror campaigns have occured in almost every African country when given independance.
  
  Mugabe won the vote in 1980 because he had a much better terrorist organisation and 28 years later, it is still the case.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  where was bye election? one of tories safest seats?????????
• bern, dover wrote:
  The by-election result was hardly a surprise or much of a triumph: Tories take Henley - hardly a headline shocker!!!!!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Opinion Pollsters wont have much difficulty predicting the outcome of todays vote in Zimbabwe. Its not hard is it...considering there is only one candidate. Looks like therefore that a Robert Mugabe win is on the cards and we can all look warmly forward to a long continuance of the status quo.
  
  I wish I could arrange an Election like that for myself. Total power on offer with me being the only candidate. Yes I could use some of that. I fancy total and absolute rule of that wealthy province of Kent ( to start with)...and like all politicians and despots everywhere I would almost immediately get my big snout in the hugely lucrative gravy train. Yes there is a huge amount of gold bar gravy on offer right across all politics nowadays, but outside politics, no, and particularly not if you're a poor schmuck working for a living at the lower end.
• Bern, dover wrote:
  Hear hear PaulB.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bern and Keith.
  
  Its not the fact that Conservatives won that is remarkable but the scale of humiliation for Labour.
  
  This was a relatively high turn out for a by-election and not far short of what we have experienced in General Elections in recent years.
  
  Labour crashed from around 15% of the vote to 3% and came fifth with the Greens and BNP ahead of them by around 200 votes. The BNP!!! (fortunately still with a derisory total vote). UKIP were not too far from pushing them into 6th place....
  
  You would normally expecct the loyal core vote to turn out for them but this result has really dug in below their core.
  
  It also seems a lot of voters are coming straight across to the Conservatives instead of the Libdems.
  
  This is a poor result for them too. By-elections are meant to be the forte' of the LibDems but they are now being seen as an increasing irrrelivance when the priority must be to get this discredited Government out.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  following on from the zimbabwe election, i wonder how many from that country will be sitting up all night waiting for the results to come in?
  
  i wonder what sort of "swing" ometer they will have here.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  you make a good point about zimbabwe and no genuine election, also you mention "gravy train".
  
  how does that fit in with your views on the european union and the lisbon treaty?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Unfortunately Howard the European Union has been badly tarred with the "snout" and "gravy train" philosophy as well. But they have taken steps, albeit limited steps, to try and improve things and improve they have. However it is a new parliament on the gand scale of things and there is hope for a brighter future. Westminster on the other hand is many centuries old and they, the mother of all parliaments, havent as yet managed to moderate the "trough" factor.
  
  It is a pity we all see politics in this way nowadays, not exactly corrupt, more an excessive manipulative extravagance just within the law, which isnt very palatable with the rest of us in these austere times.
  
  However as these are the only political institutions we've got we must strive to improve them, although many ordinary people have turned their backs on the whole political mess in disgust.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Come the revolution.........
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  The Euro gravy-train wastes much more money through corruption and fictitious expenses than you can imagine.
  
  The accounts have not been sighned off for about 9 years or more; it's been brought up on here many times about this; only a few MEP's have tried to bring it to people's attention, when they have, they've been silenced and I believe one was killed.
  
  Corrupt ? we only know just the surface of it - like an iceberg.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
  
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Comeon BAZ henley HARDLY LIKELY to see labour do much there, silly man.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  As always Keith, you dont read and respond to the point actually made and prefer to hide from the truth.
  
  Just who is 'silly' here?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Baz
  YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  roger
  the unaccounted money in the eu books is mind blowing.
  i try not to look too closely at what goes on, as it soul destroying.
  
  
  the last time i looked the MEP's still get a duty free allowance!!!!
  a bit different to the litre of spirit and 200 cigs that the plebs used to get.
  
  it amounted truck loads of wines and spirits.
  
  you are right in saying that every time an MEP tries to blow the whistle, they stamped on.
  
  the rest of the world is breaking down into smaller manageable states, while here in europe, we are disappearing into a political bermuda triangle.
  le here in europe
• Guest 667 wrote:
  By-Elections come and go, the victors shout from the roof tops and the losers just shrug it off with this excuse or that.
  
  Well at least in this Country we have that right, to voice our views and vote without fear, unlike Zimbabwe. Will Africa stand up against Mugabe or will they take the soft option as in the past, certainly something has to be done about him and his thugs. The man is no more than a werewolf to his people, but with his bully boys its every night and day they & he prowls on them. Maybe some one some where will have the silver bullet for him or is that being to kind.
  
  One thing for sure when you are on opposite sides and views, you can at least accept the one great thing we have and that is Democracy. Some moan in this Country about our freedoms being eroded by god does it not make you stand up and think about why we shout so loud when you see Countries like Zimbabwe.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good post harry.
  
  the horrors of zimbabwe have to be sorted out by the african nations close by.
  
  it is not for anyone outside to get involved, except by applying sanctions.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I agree that there should be a silver bullit, not just for Mugabe, but for all his henchmen too.
  
  It appears that the OAU meeting in Egypt will fudge it once again and to my mind, it shows up their corruption too.
  
  It is true there is a slight, a very slight groundswell of grumblings from a few African Leaders, but they seem to be scared of condemning Mugabe - maybe his terrorist organisation spreads all around Africa.
  
  I was pleased to hear the next Leader of South Africa condemn him, as did Archbishop Tutu and the wonderful Archbishop of York, who tore up his dog collor on the Andrew Marr show a few months ago saying he wouldn't wear one again until Mugabe has gone.
  
  I can't understand what Mugabe has on Thabo MBeki - at least it looks like he has something on him.
  
  If Africa do not condemn Mugabe this week, then the UN should come up with a resolution - the trouble with sanctions is that there are always poeple willing to break them - for a quick buck.
  
  It is a land-locked countrty, any goods - oil and arms have to go overland or sky, so they can be stopped if there is the will.
  
  The trouble is that sanctions will harm the ordinary african most and Mugabe will stop them getting any food as he has done in the past and continues to do so now.
  
  He and his henchmen must be "taken out" - for the sake of humanity.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  The Archbishop of York is great! Not afraid to be controversial in a good way, not just to cause ripples of gain attention. And not afraid to speak for the disadvantaged. Great!
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Looks very much like the African Nations will do nothing, if this is so then surly sanctions should be brought against all of them.
  
  Magabe snubs America and the European Countries who speak up against him so America and Europe should snub him and those Countries that support him.
  
• Guest 667 wrote:
  oops spelt his name wrong what ever next. Then again maybe it is Magabe, yes Magabe he will be gone sooner rather than later.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sounds like you are doing a victor there harry.
  magabe indeed.
  on a more serious note, there are a lot of businesses in african countries that will back and defend any dictatorship if it suits their profits.
  
  3 henchmen of our own mr cameron were exposed in the "independent on sunday".
  africa is still a source of great mineral wealth, and certain major companies will do almost anything to get their snouts into the trough.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Africa is indeed an important source of many minerals we need in exchange for cash that African countries need.
  
  Someone owning shares in companies doing trade with Mugabe's Zimbabwe is hardly a capital offence, indeed howard, you might own such shares yourself through ISAs, pensions or insurance savings.
  
  Mugabe must be brought down but selling a few shares wont do the trick.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  But becoming aware of the unethical investments used by many mainstream investors and brokers and saying No is a jolly good start.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  So just how is Mugabe to be toppled Barry? If the people are to afraid to stand up to him, the other African Countries are too corrupt to do any thing and the West is worried about it financial losses.
  
  I thought the idea of shares was to buy and sell, so sell the shares in African Companies and purchase them in other Companies on the up.
  
  It appears to me that all the talk about Mugabe and he has to go is just that, "talk". People can go on being brutally abused and killed but we just shout idle words, no wonder he does just what he wants.
  
  I know it’s all a bit more complicated than this, but surly some times money has to come second and pressure has to be put on the other African Companies to make them stand up against Mugabe.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes it was a bit horrifyling to see how well received Mugabe was at the African Union gathering. Very baffling...perhaps they are all exhilarated to some degree by him sticking his two fingers up at the old colonial powers, perhaps it resonates with their darkest thoughts.
  
  Despite calls for Zimbabwean sanctions and embargoes and whathaveyou, trading goes on aplenty. Eyebrows were raised last week when Anglo American announced an £8billion mining deal with them there...and I heard on the radio this morning that Tesco have confirmed they will continue trading with farmers there and continue to buy their produce. The Tesco line is that if they stop it will cause immense hardship to the ordinary people involved in farming, the people we least want to hurt. Yes...Tesco may have got it right with this one.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Harry traders do indeed buy and sell shares but that is a mugs game for non-professionals. Indeed this Government has been trying to encourgage longer term holding of equities.
  
  There are some ethical fund that you can buy into but because of the smaller universe of companies avaiable to the managers they generally carry higher risks than mainstream equivilents. Once again the Governmenrt has (through the FSA/Sandlers report) been encouraging the use of passive funds (trackers) within which all listed companies in the index being tracked get a slice of the action. These are often what you get through Stakeholder schemes. Most people will be benefitting from companies that trade with Zimbabwe who have Stakeholder Pensions etc. Incidentally, not all ethical funds will be avoiding companies trading with oppressive regimes, it depends on what negative criteria is applied. Its very difficult indeed for any investor to avoid specific companies in this way. It is a matter of the shareholder.
  
  Yes Mugabe needs to be taken down and as I say selling a few shares wont do that. An SAS sniper could do it and I would not oppose that kind of action. If the Government had invested enough in our Armed Forces and if they were not suffering overstretch we might be able to take additional military action, depending on whether overfly/resupply agreement can be reached with one of Zimbabwe's neighbours. I would again be supportive of that.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Its just really had to believe how one man and his supporters can so totally destroy what once must have been a wealthy country may be we are not so bad here after all at least we have our freedom.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Think Hitler.....just because a man is black doesn't protect him from accusations of genocide and attrocoties...or does it? The world is hanging back to avoid accusations of colonisalism or racism. For Gods sake!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  no need for blasphemy bern, spare a thought for us religious souls.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Given the outrageous lack of global response to this self evident despot I am running out of secular options!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I see at last the African Union has urged for change in Zimbabwe. I think a very comfortable looking Robert Mugabe was shocked last night by this little bit of departure from the normal back slapping Africans. Nothing too revolutionary has happened but a cold haddock in the gob may shake MUgabe out of his comfort zone. Eventually if enough pressure is brought by his fellow Africans at least some level of power sharing with Morgan Tsvangarai might just take place. Mugabe is unlikely to relinguish power altogether so power sharing could be the only way...until God steps in and calls him to that Serengeti in the Sky! God indeed may be the only one with the opportunity to remove him.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  This goes to the core of what I find so wrong about Labour, their obsession with regulating us all into a straightjacket of their design.
  
  To quote Irwin Stelzer's article in the Telegraph today.
  
  """""
  “[Gordon Brown] has had some 2,823 laws passed during his first year in office - eight per day and 64 per cent more than Lady Thatcher averaged - many aimed at regulating businesses and commercial transactions between private parties, such as the buyers and sellers of property.
  
  This at a time when it is crucial to reduce taxes on entrepreneurs and small businesses, and the red tape that makes it so difficult for small businesses to start and to survive.”
  
  """""
  Businesses are having a very difficult time of it. They are not recruiting or indeed laying people off.
  
  Anyone associated with building trades are particularly affected by the downturn. I have been told one estate agent in Dover has closed and I expect others will folllow. An interior design business I know of is fighting for its life. 10% of IFA firms are predicted to go bust because their outdated commission business model is unsustainable in the current climate, many of them were only able to keep going anyway because of high levels or mortgage business. The FTSE suffered heavy falls yesterday because of manufacturing woes. There could be more trouble with banks in difficulty, the HBOS rights issue could well be doomed to fail.
  
  All of this happening and what is the response of our Government, why its to make life even more difficult for business. The article was about laws that have been passed, thats bad enough, but its what they have lined up for the future that is even worse...
  
  This is madness, utter madness. Brown simply doesnt have a clue. With the Labour Party broke and dependant on the Unions for funding, the
  Union's shopping list of conditions will further damage businesses if enacted.
  
  We need an election and a new Government more than ever before.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  When you say we.........................?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  First we need an effective opposition!!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith. Just displaying that you live on a different planet....
  
  20 points ahead in the polls
  winning by-elections, gaining Crewe and Nantwich for the first time...
  Brown being regularly slaughtered by Cameron in PMQs
  Polling a lead on every policy issue
  Policies that keep getting copied by Labour - latest looks like being Ken Clarkes constitutional changes!
  Labour backbenchers in a pannick
  
  I think that suggests a very effective opposition.
  
  Bern: Yes, we - believe it or not your own prosperity is linked to the economy which itself is totally dependant on the success of British businesses. The same businesses being screwed over by Labour that are now struggling to survive.
• bern, dover wrote:
  My prosperity is important, to my family as well as to me, but it is measured in many ways, not solely in terms of business and wealth. Of course, it is easy to say that when we have enough - but I believe that I will say it when I do not have enough as well - poverty of spirit and mind are as important as poverty of goods.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Sadly I hate to say it but I think Barry is right about effective opposition. Labour are now in the same position the Conservatives were in just before New Labour came to Power.
  
  Labour have lost their way, lost direction, lost credibility and lost any type of Leadership. I have voted Labour but, I can not see me voting that way at the next election unless they find some one else with some credibility to steer the ship away from the rocks.
  
  My only problem will be when an election does come and I have told Barry this before and that is, can I trust the Conservatives after their terms of non caring government prior to Labour getting power.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Just to hark back to the EU again..
  
  What is it about the EU, the UK, and Ireland lately. Opposition for daft opposition sake. A couple of times now I have heard about the new EU proposal about seriously cutting back on the use of very nasty pesticides right across Europe. Now to all sensible people this seems a good move. The idea generally is this..that we move to..
  a. Eliminate pesticides from the food we eat
  b. Eliminate the dangerous aspects of their daily use, putting those that use them at cancerous risk.
  c. and that we protect the already near poisoned environment.
  
  Everybody else right across Europe agrees that this is a good move, including me. But no not here..not in Ireland either. One or two countries on the eastern arm of the EU support UK and Ireland. But everyone else, including the French farmers who might be regarded as the breadbasket of Europe, are in favour. All the main players, all the central power nations if you like, are in favour. The argument here in the UK is that it will hit food production but this is something utterly refuted by everyone else.
  
  For heavens sake why is it that the UK has to be dragged every single time kicking and screaming towards modernisation.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well PaulB, perhaps you should ask the Government you support that question.
  
  I dont know the answer as I have not read up on the issues involved. I see that opposition is not only the UK though.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bern - I admire your sentiments but it does not get away from the fact that the economy is in trouble and businesses, including local businesses, are in trouble. It is excessive interference by Government and their tendancy to introduce more and more red tape and increase taxes (targeted last time at vulnerable small businesses) that contribute to these problems.
  
  Harry. This matter you refer to of caring is an interesting one.
  
  Caring can take many forms.
  
  The easiest way to show caring is to dole out money and that is the way favoured by the Labour Government. It is an easy way to get popularity to spend more, perhaps on education or perhaps on the NHS.
  
  But what determines a good Government is not based on those easy and popular decisions to spend on popular items but on the more difficult and challenging decisions. What is needed is a sustainable economy based on profitable businesses paying taxes and providing employment. If we look after that economic base first you are more able to provide lasting and better funding to those public services.
  
  I believe that looking after our economic base is caring and ultimately in all our best interests.
  
  Under this Government they have failed to do that. Instead they have made life more difficult for businesses, small businesses in particular. they have spent lots of money and can shout, hey look, we care - but the result is economic disaster.
  
  We need a change of direction. We need to get the economic base mended and that will mean some difficult and sometime unpopular decisions and I cannot see the present Government being willing to take them.
  
  Taking those difficult decisions would be a demonstration of caring....
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul surprised by your post.
  french farmers the breadbasket of europe??
  
  i think not, the germans have fought for 30 years to reverse the common agricutural policy that rewards outdated practices amongst our gallic friends.
  the british and irish standing alone?
  again, i think not, the french and dutch voted against further integration.
  the czech and polish governments have refused to ratify the treaty.
  everyone that has been asked their opinion is against this blinkered sleep walk to a super state.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Howard I wasnt talking about the Treaty today but about who is standing where with regard to this new pesticide policy. The UK and Ireland are against new pesticide legislation on the grounds that it will impare production...ie less food production per acre kind of thing. I think the Rumanians and one other are also taking the same line..but everyone else is for new pesticide legislation for the reasons Ive listed in my earlier posting below, and they say production is not reduced.
  
  It makes a lot of sense to everyone and I heard it well argued on R4 this morning..it was also featured a few days ago as well..but sadly this retrograde line taken by UK and Ireland seems a shame.We are all aware of the harm in pesticides. It would be sad if we block every Euro move just for the sake of blocking. This current anti mood is mostly due to the inaccuracies printed daily by Rupert Murdoch which have created a false myth on Europe...straight bananas and so on.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Hear Hear Howard - it's too easy to scorn the people who are dissenting.
  
  Disturbingly, I am in agreement with BarryW.........it may be something I ate. It is true that too robust controls and interference are creating a problem with business and the economy, and Labour are not the only ones guilty of that. And making challenging decisions really is a mark of a confident and competent government, throwing money at problems in isolation rarely works effectively. However, the dilemma with a democracy that is under the undue influence of a wealthy politically motivated media boss (mention no names......but the Sun was out today, and the Sky was Blue..)is that the under-educated or the vulnerable are left without the skills or experiences to make informed decisions and are open to the exploitation of the mas media. Yes, it's a kind of democracy, and yes, we all have a vote, but there are questions to be asked about free will if the information available to the masses is filtered or biased. And, the result is that people who may actually be good at government are forced to attempt to popularise with "popular" decisions and actions.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  i should have made myself more clear.
  
  my argument is not against pesticides or straight bananas, but about the subject being discussed.
  
  this is just another directive, no-one at the top gives us info as to why they
  want these things to happen.
  
  debate at national level is important so that each country can decide for themselves what is right.
  incidentally what papers does mr murdoch own nowadays?
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Yes the reality is that we do live in a rather diminished state of democracy. The media, and in many cases uncontrollably large companies, are in many ways more powerful than our government. I believe our parties all aligning towards what is perceived to be the centre is actually just them conforming to the ideals created by the mass-media (much like young people and the media image). Large supermarkets, promoted as a British success stories, destroy small businesses all the time, however the idea that competition is good is still being pedaled, the only real winners being the shareholders that probably have more money than they need anyway. These companies are not challenged, because they are contributing so heavily to the economy, employing more people than the British Army. In turn these large companies have control over the government just because of the ‘popular capitalism’ that was made so pleasantly acceptable by... the media. There are rich and there are poor, and worldwide, very little in between. The notions of market forces, competition and economic growth only widen this gap. Mr Elphicke in his blog used the game of Monopoly as an good analogy for economic success, now I may be playing it wrong but I’ve never had a game where everybody has drawn.
  
  The Conservatives were at the forefront of harnessing the power of the media, an absolute testament to their campaign genius for the 1979 elections. Employing Saachi and Saachi, and getting Larry Lamb and friends onside, which just proves that they knew that advertisers were better at engaging the general public than they were. Labour of course learnt their lesson and so we got the improved flavour, rebranding, that was ‘New Labour’. This isn’t democratic representation but propaganda and presentation to fit the notions set by the media, Tony, Gordon didn’t fulfill the promise that ‘Things can only get better’ (awful song). There is a lack of transparency and so many uneducated and underprivileged have no way of breaking their cycle. Our primary concerns should be with the education and health of everyone in this great country, not just concentrating on making everyone materialistically rich. Even the very notion that everyone can be rich (prevalent in the 80’s...“loadsa money”) is just a way of the ruling elements of society to engage the proletariat in doing the hard graft for the benefit of the rich. The Conservatives are currently using the rather catchy ‘you can get it if you really want’ (but you must try...and try etc) I’m not sure if Desmond Dekka had the Protestant Work Ethic in mind when he penned this fab tune but at least the Tories are being honest their outlook.
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Just read that back...make that Health, education and safety of everyone
• bern, dover wrote:
  Good posting....respect!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I note today that Gwyn Prosser is on the 'Role of Shame' list of MP's who voted to keep the 'John Lewis' list.
  
  In fact the great majority of MPs, 146 of 172 that voted to keep the second home allowance, which allows MPs to buy items on the "John Lewis list", were Labour, including 33 ministers.
  
  David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet voted against along with most Conservative MPs.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Correct me if I am wrong but was not a 10% pay rise on the MP's agenda as well. I know it was turned down but what was it doing up for grabs in the first place when you take in what Teachers, Police etc have had to accept.
  
  As the pay rise was defeated as I understand it, would be nice to know who voted for it.
  
  I have only got snippets so may have this all wrong.
  
  As for the 2nd Home Allowance, well that’s a disgrace and no pride can be taken Barry if some Tories voted for it as well even if the numbers were far less.
  
  To me it all stinks of lets look after our selves and sod the rest of the Country.
  
  H
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I couldnt agree more, Harry - it is a disgrace.
  
  Simple fact is that the vast majority of those voting for this were Labour MPs and, reading politicshome commentaries there was some very nasty insulting abuse directed by some Labour members to Conservatives, such as George Osborne, who voted against.
  
  A very small number of Conservatives did vote for, mostly the usual suspects and I would hope that their Constituencies will raise a stink with them. All of the Shadow Cabinet voted against I am glad to say.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  don't forget that our honourable members get a 5 year contract(sometimes only lasts 4), without fear of the boot.
  how many other jobs offer that security?
  
  i hope that you do not fritter away your 150 notes, invest in an ISA and will be worth a lot less in no time.
  no need to thank me for the financial advice.
• bern, dover wrote:
  I have never understood why, even given security, MPS cannot do what nurses and other public workers have often had to do - and actually it has its benefits! - and use an "MPs home", like the old "nurses homes". In fact, security would probably be easier to administer as the MPS would be grouped together and eaiser to monitor. Voila! No need for a second home!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - stick to what you know, a bit limiting I know but better than getting locked up for providing financial advice for which your are not authorised and regulated. I suggest that you find out about ISAs....I can explain them but there is a fee......
• Guest 675 wrote:
  I have a question. If the government did have secure flats for MP's (a great idea), would those in their second or subsequent terms have 'the right to buy'?
• bern, dover wrote:
  "Right to buy".........a curious concept for us old Lefties.........
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  the real experts on isas are the people that have them.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Like me, you mean Howard and my clients!
• DT, Dover wrote:
  ‘Right to Buy’ ...genius, selling you something you already own. The reality: the mortgage lenders became ‘home owners’ and the people locked into financial bondage, just became ‘home buyers’ (a far easier group to control)
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I won't get into the MP debate as they are all paid far to much thats labour tory lib dem etc dont think its just a labour fing cos it aint(if you dont believe me check the tory or lib dem allowances it will open your eyes
  
  
  DT
  your right about the right to buy worse thing ,maggie ever did, now council houses are thing of past, but its wrong iv never agreed with it, the reason for council houses is a good one now they nearly all gone
• Guest 675 wrote:
  The right to buy would, at a stretch, have been a good idea as a way of raising revenue with which to build new council housing, this increasing the housing stock and maintaining a healthy building trade. Of course, like so many things Thatcher, it was designed purely as a fund raiser (selling off the family silver to keep the votes coming in) and restrictions were placed on how the councils selling off their housing stock could spend the money. One thing they were not allowed to do was build houses with it. Ask Brighton who got taken to court for doing so.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that the demise of high quality local authority housing has contributed a lot to the social breakdown that we are faced with today.
  chris is right, the flogging off off of council houses was a good short term vore winner and raised revenue.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  On the other side of the political view is the fact that it meant people could actually own their own home - something they probably would never have been able to do otherwise.
  
  The biggest purchase they would ever make and it could be theirs, to take a pride in and something they could take great pride in being able to say - "it's mine".
  It is also something of value to hand down to their children - to help them in a substantial way.
  
  In most cases the mortgages were very similar to the rent they paid.
  
  I agree there could/should have been more affordable/social houses built, but why should they be the responsibility of local authorities ? what's wrong with RSLs - Housing Associations ?
  
  Tenants of housing associations have the same security as any council tenant, rents can't go up any quicker, repairs are usually done quicker and in some cases to a better standard.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Roger
  On the housing assoc. thats not quite how it works, as council tennant you have the right direct to have your viws known
  
  iv been a member of a oard of a housing assoc and its quite different.
  they have tennants reps on it, but the 1 rep from the tennants was outnumbered by 14 housing assoc bosses board members all of one mind and the tennant usually los most of the arguments shre put forward.
  So its not so rosey.
  
  As chris says Maggies Idea of selling council houses is a good one, if your to replace them, but that was never the aim, the aim was to give the impression that those buying houses would move away from usual core labour voting and from a political stand maggie did well on that score.
  but thats only perception that some people got dragged in on.
  
  Sadly many then lost there homes because they couldnt keep up the repayments s it didnt help them that much.
  
  Now we are running short of low rent but more importantly council houses and still have long waiting lists for people to get a council house, selling them off and not replacing them is very short sighted.
  
  k
  And I havn't mentioned tory lady porter in westminster who got done in the courts over her fiasco on selling of council houses, and boy was that a political move, agreed by the courts
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You socialists want to keep a client group dependant upon your largesse and locked in to voting for you to protect their benefits and reliant on you for housing.
  
  We have the opposite view.
  
  We want people to be independent and self reliant. We want everybody to have the opportunity of home ownership, of owning shares and having their own financial stake in society and the success of our economy. Right to Buy was one of the great success stories of the 1980's.
  
  Benefits should only ever be a sort term safety net. Likewise social housing should only be a 'port of call' as people get on and improve, through their own efforts, their economic wellbeing.
  
  Nobody should be locked in to a dependancy society and that is all that this Labour Government has achieved for so many. It is an appalling state of affairs.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  As I said the reality that these people were not actually ‘home owners’ but ‘home buyers’ once bitten by the bug, in many cases with little understanding of the financial restraints, the debt culture we live in today was born. After ‘buying’ (and I use that term loosely) their council home, the next move was to borrow against their ‘investment’ to fit double glazing, and that lovely stone cladding, so popular in ex-council estates. These two features defined the “it’s mine” statement, a mindset borrowed from the middle-class also known as ‘keeping up with the Jones’ I know so many people still shackled into their mortgage from right to buy, because of the debt culture created.
  
  Then once you have a mentality that ‘debt isn’t so bad’ people borrow against the house for a car, the wide screen TV (or new Betamax VCR in the 1980’s) and the next thing move off the estate to a ‘better’ area. (People are transient and not interested in community and this is a problem) The thing that I wish to hand down to my children is that none of these materialistic things really matter. I would rather be passing on a good, functioning country rather than 100 houses in a bad one. For some reason in Dover this move is usually to the village of River, which seems to bizarrely be the descriptor of class migration for so many, don’t get me wrong River is a lovely place but this whole ‘village’ thing is just a way of confirming affiliation with middle England.
  
  Now I must make it clear, I myself am the proud owner of a mortgage (It’s all mine) and I do unfortunately possess some of the traits I condemn. This is because if I didn’t I would have reduced stability for my family, as this country is still based around the remanence a feudal system. Inheritance of material goods just perpetuates this divide between the poor and rich. And this is the paradox created by Conservative thinking, you can’t “get it if you really want” because somebody probably already has ‘it’ and you can “try and try” all you like; in turn lining the pockets of the privileged, who didn’t ‘try and try’ they just got given ‘it’ because their tyrannical ancestors took it.
  
  This wasn’t so destructive when people couldn’t see the extent to which the then ‘ruling class’ had ‘it’ but now in a media age the level of inequality is painfully obvious, and in turn creates such negativity towards the status quo (and I don’t mean the ‘best band’ in the world Vic).
  
  Sorry about the overuse of inverted commas, I just have to detach myself from some of these lines.
  
  PS. I feel I should make it clear I am currently off work looking after my children and wife who has just had her gallblader removed. I feel I have an obligation to the Tax Payer to do this.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  DT - it seems that you are critisising people for normal human aspirations to improve their lifestyles and property (though stone cladding can hardly be called an improvement, agreed....)
  
  Borrowing, whether for a mortgage of plasma tv is not wrong in itself. What is wrong is borrowing to excess at a level that you cannot service the debt. The other problem with borrowing is when you do not have the reserves available to deal with unforseen emergencies.
  
  I would not regard the issues you mention as the main cause of todays debt problems. I would highlight a greater problem as the way youngsters are required to borrow to complete their education. This creates a much too blase' attitude towards debt at the wrong time in someone's life.
  
  Apart from that the Government has made a number of other basic errors over the last 11 years and in this I do speak as someone dealing with personal finance issues daily.
  
  First of all it discouraged saving. This is really the big one. They degraded the tax benefits of tax free saving and reduced the amounts people can invest in this way. They got just about everything wrong when it came to investing and saving. The savings ratio has fallen by more than two thirds over the last 11 years and that includes pension and non-pension saving. It is a disaster and is set to get worse. The 'Personal Accounts' that they plan to introduce are another step in the wrong direction that is bound to compound the problem.
  
  Now we have hit an economic downturn people do not have any reserves to cushion them, so the downturn and its impact on people is all the worse. The other effect, of course, is that people did not have the savings to purchase their plasma screen or new bioler so they borrow, pushing up private debt to new records. And that makes them even more vulnerable.
  
  The Government also led by setting a bad example borrowing itself, more and more at the point in the economic cycle when it should have been repaying debt. This means that they have no reserves either to cushion the effects without printing money that will lead to additional inflationary pressures.
  
  It did one more thing that I found to be totally irresponsible. They claimed 'boom and bust' was over. This was nonsense, frankly absurd, people responded with overconfidence feeling the good times would continue to roll.... This was good for the short-term political objectives for the Government, of course, the resulting borrowing kept the economy afloat for a while, itself adding to the feeling of 'good times'. We are now paying the price.
• bern, dover wrote:
  We probably need to agree that there were many errors made by the last few governments of all colours and doctrines. People have been encouraged to do foolish things as the result of advertising, political will, and ignorance, and we are now feeling the unpleasantness as a result. I have to agree that Labour have sold educstion short despite the Education Education Education mantra we all remember with a shudder, but it has to be said that, if they had been socialist instead of namby pamby Noo Labour they would have taken a different line.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some long posts here, i rather like the one from dt that differentiated between bettering oneself and gaining from others.
  
  we english like to own our own home, whether it be a castle or an air raid shelter.
  
  this should not mean that we are cutting ourselves off from ot
  hers that are not so lucky.
  
  
  
• Guest 675 wrote:
  There seems to be a simplistic view developing here that equates where you live with how you vote. We all know council tenants that vote Conservative and home owners that vote Labour. Peoples aspirations and politics tend to come more from family background than their current financial status, giving them money won't make them Conservatives and taking it away won't make them Labourites. The housing question has more to do with a perception of security than anything else and given the uncertainty of the Thatcher years it is hardly surprising that people wanted to grab hold of something they hoped to be able to rely on. Remember at her worst the news broadcasts were giving daily updates on the large numbers of job losses, the only time in over fifty years of television that I can recall that being neccesary.
  Building homes is a different question and it was unbelievably short sighted of Thatchers government to cripple a vital part of the economy, the building trade, by forbidding further building. Just when they were busy running around and selling off anything that was not tied down they pulled the rug out from underneath construction. Jobs were disappearing at a frightening rate and yet the government refused to use housing money on the most basic human right, homes. The current Labour government has done little to correct this but then they have never reversed any of the many 'adjustments' (ie. fiddles) that the Thatcher government made in the way unemployment figures are counted, despite promises to do so.
• DT1 wrote:
  I agree, I don’t think that where you live dictates how you vote. I think it’s all to do with perception, some taken from upbringing, some existential, I would not for a second suggest that because you live on a council estate you would not vote Conservative. But it is true, and well documented, that the 1980’s was a revolution in terms of material greed. You don’t even have to read between the lines with some of the seemingly inspirational speeches of Mrs. Thatcher that possession was the answer to progression. i.e own a home, own a car, build more motorways, turn your back on society in favour of extreme individualism. What was misunderstood by Mrs. T is that provision is more important than ownership, as if she just looked as Maslow’s Hierarchy and just asked “how much will this cost?”
  
  I would never criticise aspiration as it is the basis of motivation, my issue is with the confusion between need and want. We need homes however it is want that makes us buy them. If aspirations are all based around want before the basic needs of people are addressed, then we are faced with a rather bleak future.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Aspirations are cool, but not at the expense of our Selves or our Values. And aspirations are not always about material betterment. Chris, you are right. I wear my I Still Hate Thatcher t-shirt with pride!
• Guest 677 wrote:
  Just where exactly have some aspirations got us, some people aspired to show their material success by purchasing holiday homes in beautiful villages, this has resulted in the house prices rising to the extent that local people cannot afford to buy houses in the areas where they grew up. Can we expect something similar in Dover when the high speed rail link makes us a commuter town.
  
  In an age where (so I've heard) the average house price is 180,000 pounds and the average wage is 18,000 pounds a year social housing has never been more necessary for almost all. Explain to me, as someone who has a good job and a good wage but cannot afford a mortgage, how am I supposed to save up the 108,000 pounds needed for a deposit on a house. The fact that so many council houses have been sold with no hope for replacement means that those of us without the means to buy are left in houses that are too small for us with no hope of change.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Im findng myself agreeing with DT1 and even most of Chris Precious,
  bern's comments on her tee shirt amused me, there were a lot about at the time.
  
  We have a problem of lack of council houses thats not been resolved
  and needs resolving
• bern, dover wrote:
  Stephanie - you have pointed out what is often missed - the human outcome. because of the sell-out of the Tories who took the homes from under middle-low income earners and those who are disadvantaged people are still stuck without the near prospect of mobility. The thing lip-service-championed by Thatcher and her clones, social mobility and the potential to "better oneself" was very effectively trashed in a cynical move to raise hopes, cause a rise in material aspirations which had no hope of being met, and as has been indicated, trapping people in the debt/mortgage cycle where they can be more effectively kept under control.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  It has to be said maggie did well to look after her own, whilst attempting to destroy others that were not her own, very effctive i parts to.
  
  
  Shame our mr blair didnt do same for his parties own instead we now have the two biggest political parties fighting for the middle class vote and dressing up to see(or pretend to see) who can pretendto be nicest
  politics took a dive when this started to happen and now cameron has taken same route, sad day for politics
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that you will find that a lot of people would agree with you there keith.
  
  people do not know which party represents their interests.
  
  i have said on here many times recently, that i will not be voting at the next general election.
  
  local elections are a different issue.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Far too many points to respond to them all......
  
  Stephanie - the average wage is somewhat over £23,000 currently but you are 'in the ball park' for the average house price. House prices are determined by demand and the market and it is right that they should. In more recent years house prices have been largely driven by Buy to Let purchases. Too many amateur landlords have been coming into the market staking all on that single asset class when it would have been more sensible to diversify their investments. House prices are falling and many Buy to Letters will be getting their fingers burnt (indeed many already have, including one person in Canterbury who I strongly advised against it just 3 years ago....)
  
  I sincerly hope that commuters will be moving to Dover as we need their money locally to improve our town. If you want better shops and leisure then you need the commuters.
  
  There is no denying that it is difficult for people to get on the housing ladder and is likely to remain so even with falling house prices so yes there is a need for social housing, but that does not have to be Local Authority. The old massive council estates are no example of good practise.
  
  Housing Associations are a more cost effective route provided those they house can buy their homes when their circumstances allow.
  
  Many of the problems we have now in respect of housing and low pay are as a direct result of Labour's open door immigration policy of 1997. Increase the supply of low skilled labour and you drive down the price of that labour, while at the same time increasing the demand for housing and putting additional pressures on overstretched services.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I love the quote from Mrs. Thatcher that sums it all up. When asked her greatest achievement she replied "New Labour"
  
  There are not enough Council houses, and it truly a failing of our government. The pride often asscociated with ownership is just a myth, my Nan, who died about 5 years ago, moved into her council house when my mum was a young child. (from a Buckland prefab) She lived in the house until she passed away and as far as she was concerned it was as much hers as it needed to be. As a child I remember the stone cladding and double glazing springing up around her (which has obviously had a profound effect on me) She was very house proud, loving her home and when she died another young family, unable to buy a house, were able to benefit from it, a far more noble legacy.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Mrs T's quote was of course referring to the death of left wing Clause 4 socialism which, thankfully, became totally unelectable. Sad that it had to be replaced with a new and equally destructive form of beaurocratic socialism. Mrs T's quote was made before the full impact of that was change was felt.
  
  I repeat what I said, social housing does not have to be councils and overall councils are poor providers of housing. Councils have huge on-costs and are incapable of even running a bar profitably themselves.
• Guest 677 wrote:
  I agree that it shouldn't be the local authorities who provide social housing but I do think that the government should be putting more of an effort into social housing. This embargo on building is ridiculous but what I find more astounding is that there is no ability to do up the deralict houses that blight our landscape surely that would assist in many ways, also allowing the town to look more attractive for those commuters that will help to make this town the great place to live it alway used to be.
  
  Just one question Barry about your average salary (whilst not disbuting your figures) do you know anyone in this area who is not in middle management or higher that is actually earning that, I honestly think this is another government ploy, persuading us that our standard of living is better than it is.
  
  Did Labour ever undo all the bad things the Conservatives were supposed to have done.
• Guest 675 wrote:
  I remember some years ago, while we had a female PM, a cabinet member was appearing on Question Time or something of the same ilk. Throughout the programme she repeatedly quoted the 'average wage' to defend her case so that eventually a member of the audience asked her what she thought was the average wage. Two hundred pound a week, she shot back (or a similar figure it was a while ago). The audience burst into loud peals of laughter, leaving her sitting there looking disgusted. As you will well know, because of the very large sums earned by company directors, MP's and other upper management types, coupled with the fact that (thanks to the benefit system) no one actually has no income, the mean point on any average graph will always be something in the region of 50% higher than the majority earn. A look through the job vacancies in the local papers or job centre will confirm this. Sorry if this sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs Barry, but sometimes we forget the basics.
• Guest 675 wrote:
  P.S.
  Keep watching thhe forum and you will see that Stephanie and I do not always agree.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  your probably right on the avarage wage, but look at how many people in this town earn no where near that figure, and its very very high, there he ones that need help.
  
  I don't care who provids housing, but as iv posted before it needs to be on a level footing and tennants rights taken into account not ignored.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Reflecting on the G8 Summit...I think many will agree that Gordon Brown had a good G8 summit. He looked assured and confident in his surroundings, and came across as a weighty politician while mingling with the other leaders. His interviews were good and showed real concern over the various difficulties we currently find ourselves in. He told us the problems were/are global and this was easily digestible. Despite party political shenanigans in this area, I think most people buy into the economic problems being of a global nature.
  
  Pity then to see this good work unravelled by the latest tax fiasco on roadtax. Under the guise of banana Greenery, we now know that 9million people will pay more roadtax on their cars, with the poorest being the worst hit, as the tax goes even onto secondhand cars from I think 2001. The poorer citizens own or will own secondhand cars so once again the tax burden is going in the wrong area of society...just as it did with the 10p tax rate abolition. These are traditional Labour voters too, so heaven alone knows what they are thinking here. Secondhand cars should have been written out of the equation altogether, if indeed this tax had to be levied, but with a corresponding green tax on new cars, and with the crippling end of the burden placed on the gas guzzler.
  
  I am inclined to place this repetitive tax shambles at the door of Alastair Darling, Chancellor. At least that's the straw Im clutching onto anyway, but its hard to imagine Gordon Brown doesnt have his hand somewhere on the tiller. I would like to take the optimistic view on a possible Gordon Brown recovery at this point. But Alastair Darling needs to go so that he, Gordon, can present a clean slate before the public.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You really have got some very rose coloured specs when it come to Gordon Brown PaulB.
  
  Alistair Darling is Brown's fall guy. Brown is a control freak, there has been enough information to confirm that. It was Brown who announced as Chancellor the tax rise for the low paid, the fuel escalator and the car tax, Darling merely implements his policies. Every analysis shows that Brown is in charge and Darling cannot do anything without his boss' say so.
  
  Brown has to be the most inept PM in living memory as well as being a totally useless Chancellor. Only since coming out of the shadows into the PM position have his personal shortcomings become obvious to the general public.
  
  As for the economic downturn. It is much worse in this country than it needs to be simply because of Brown's inept fiscal management.
  
  There is no doubt that he was the instigator of the following all of which have worsened the crisis:
  ...Increased Government borrowing during a long growth cycle at a time when logic demand borrowing should be repaid. This has dramatically reduced the Governments flexibility to respond to the downturn appropriately.
  ...Discouraging saving such that individuals do not have the cash reserves to spend on capital purchases resulting in record levels of debt. Therefore individuals are doubly more at risk in the slow down due to high borrowing and lack of savings.
  ...Instigating a financial regulatory system that was badly equipped to deal with the Northern Rock issue resulting in a massive bail-out with borrowed money.
  ...Loosened money supply that is leading to increase domestic inflation preventing interest rate reductions when they are needed.
  ...Hampering businesses with more and more red tape and in the case of small businesses increased taxation. This is placing them a greatly increased risk in the downturn. It is now a matter of survival, not growth.
  
  I note that unemployment for those between ages of 18 to 24 have significantly increased over the last 10 years indicating a failure of the so called 'new deal'. These are some of the figures produced by OECD (not a partisan organisation) Unemployment rate: 1997 13.4%, 2007 14.4%: Employment rate 1997 66.8% 2007 55.9%: Those not in education or training 1997 11.6% 2007 13%: School drop out rate 1997 5.3% 2007 6%.
  
  I have not even touched on issues such as pensions and gold sales.
  
  An appalling record for Brown and his Government.
• Guest 677 wrote:
  To be fair I was very young at the time but all that you've mentioned below Barry seem reminiscent of the situation we found ourselves in under the conservatives in the early nineties.
  
  Is it perhaps time for a new ruling party, do we always have to yo yo from Labour to Conservative and back again without seeing much in the way of difference between the two.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Stephanie, I can see why you are saying that but on close examination there are several major differences....
  
  First of all the economic situation was brought about by one significant misjudgement, started by Nigel Lawson that continued under the Chancellorship of John Major and that was to shadow the DMark and then to join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. This meant that domestic interest rates were determined for the wrong reasons. At the time there were massive and well publicised rows between Mrs Thatcher (backed by her adviser Alan Waters) and the pro Europe wing of the Tories supported by the CBI, Liberals, Labour and Trade Unions. Most of the media too were against Mrs T and there were headlines calling on her to support her 'brilliant Chancellor' and join the ERM.
  
  Eventually even she buckled under the pressure and Major as Chancellor had taken us in. She was proven right when we crashed out of the ERM and that began the economic recovery. This is why the Conservative Party is so adamantly against joining the Euro, we have learned that lesson.
  
  What we did not have was the restriction on business as a result of higher business taxes and red tape hindering our economic performance.
  
  While you are right there are parallels in the impact on the public that causes are far different. many of us did see the problem that Brown was stacking up and warned that he was not what he was cracked up to be but we were not listened to and he was allowed to carry on with his economic wrecking spree.
  
  It is particularly sad because if the economy had been well managed by Brown during what was a 15 year period of world economic growth, we would have a low tax and low debt economy and the Government would have a wide range of options to alleviate the downturn that are now denied it. I suspect, as well, that the additonal economic growth that would have been generated would have boosted tax revenues sufficiently to allow higher spending close to the levels we have now but without the high borrowing and tax levels.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  First you say its nly G'B's fault, thren you go on to say how poor lawson and major were, I can add so was Ian Duncan Smith(as a leader) i believe he's a better politician now than when he became leader, he certainly was NOT leadershp material.
  
  So they all have there faults,
  but hey, lets just knock the Govt a baz????
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith, maybe its because I can't understand what you had written, but it looks as if you have some diffficulties with comprehension...
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
• D Croucher, Dover wrote:
  Barry W will no doubt want to comment on this as I and several others would like to know what you have to be/do to form a Town Council? This is a serious question and sometimes I feel it is not run as a business, having attended one of their meetings last year? I am not sure, sometimes, if the best interests of the town are being managed. I have an open mind and I am not anti any of the proposals thus far but I wander if the previous proposers are in the right circles and have the right connections and not just members of the COC.
  
  I also believe the DTC needs to have no political affiliations. Is this a niave thought?
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  D Croucher have moved your message here so that BarryW wont miss it. You placed it in the semi defunct 'recent hot letters' item on the main menu. That page was due to be taken off the main menu...and now has.
  
  There is a bit of confusion at the moment while we adjust. Your contribution very welcome.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Good morning
  I will leave the posting on what a Town councli does/should do to the many poters from that council, will be interesting to see who replies, and what they say.
  Howard you ready for this?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  D Croucher. Town Councils are established by statute. The Dover Town Council was formed relatively recently after a review by Government and after public consultation.
  
  They are elected every 4 years and the best way to change things is to get elected. that, however, can be a frustrating matter as you would need to have a majority support to really get changes.
  
  There are some good people on DTC regardless of politics even if we might disagree with how/what they are doing.
  
  I do agree with you that Party politics should not have a place at Town/Parish Council level. There was a time when only the Labour Party officially contested seats for Dover Town Council. That, however is changing, prompted I expect by some of the frustrations you reflect.
  
  I hope I have understood and answered your points.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  As usual you give a one sided view on what is happening.
  To put across a more fuller picture, the CONSERVATIVES stand in all
  DEALTOWN council elections, so this belief that they shuldn';t stand is a mythe, as usual the conservatives(well baz anyway) gives a view that attempts to put one party under the spotlight.
  
  If the conservatives DID NOT stand and get cllrs elected onto DEAL Town council then I would agree a little with our BAZ
  its a bit double standards to slag off the Labour party in Dover for standing candidates(and actually now the conservatives also stand candidates in the Dover Town council as well!!) when they do so themselves, and in Deal the conservatives have done so for some time.
  
  So its an all party fing, and yes you need a majority just like any other council, thats democracy
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith - why dont you go and take a cold shower.
  
  I was giving a personal view and talking about Dover Town Council, twerp
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW I am suspending you for three days for that last post. Thats the third time you have had a personal swipe at someone so like they say in the good ol US.."three strikes and your out"
  
  Open posts will be deleted and you are blocked from the Letters Club. You are a very bad boy! what are you...?
  
  You will be re-engaged on wednesday.
• kEITH, Dover wrote:
  Just feel its a shame it has to come to this, ITS ALL ABOUT EVERYONE BEING ABLE TO HAVE A VIEWPOINT
• bern, dover wrote:
  The ability to debate and discuss and disagree is a grown up one. We should value this opportunity to hear other peoples views even if we disagree vehemently. It would be dreadful to locse this forum for discussion - I have learned a great deal here over the past few months!!
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  Its also the ability t be man(or woman)enough to apologise if someone is offended.
  I don't want to see anyone banned even for a day, but there must be guidlines.
  
  You need to be able to post, respect others views that may not be same as yours, but still respect them
  
  He will soon be back It is difficult cos BAZ and I come from completely different political backgrounds/beliefs, and its hard to discuss BAZ when hes unable to reply so might be better if i leave it there.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Ok guys it seems easy to take swips at Dover town council and its councillors, and I do not want to get shoot at dawn for passing comment.
  And partly agree at town level politic's should not play a part but thats the way it goes at this moment in time, its down to Jo public to change that.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Then let us in!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  d. croucher.
  
  you have opened a can of worms here.
  i have strong views on the town council.
  
  i really do not care what political colour a councillor is, i would like to know what their views on subjects relating to their position are.
  
  just, as an example, we had a councillor post here recently, that we should enquire about attendance records of councillors.
  
  rather remarkable as i had been trying by letter, phone call and e mail for over a year to get this information.
  the minutes are usually about 3 months out of date when published.
  
  we get no feedback from town councillors, either through the local press or on here.
  we get one or two posting, but not on subjects that are relevant to their position.
  the issue of the mayor is done behind closed doors, using the old "buggins turn" formula.
  the problem is a few of them have had more than one turn.
• Guest 675 wrote:
  As a Town Councillor I feel I must respond to this thread, it would not be fair to let Jan take all the flack on her own.
  The current composition of the Town Council is 2 Conservative, 5 Dover Alliance and 11 Labour. My own views on the selection of Mayor were made clear in my 'nomination' speech at Mayor Making, and it is not my fault if the press did not cover it even though they were in attendance. I am sure that a lot of my fellow councillors would be happy to give their views, if they were asked and some of us are only too happy to share our views to anyone that will listen.
  
  There is a perception by some that all we do is allotments, which we do do and take very seriously, but there is also a lot more to the Town Council than that. For one thing we are always looking at our property portfolio and seeking out the best ways to manage it for the benefit of the town. A good example is the sports field on the Western Heights which we are trying to improve and for which we have held meetings with local residents on to ensure that what we do has the support of and is in the best interests of the community. A good way to see what we do, as the press give us very little coverage even when they attend the meetings, is to come along. All of our meetings are open to the public (who are only excluded from such items as staff wages - which we hope is understandable) and the dates and agenda's are always posted in the offices in Maison Dieu House. This month we have a Planning meeting on 21st and a full Council meeting on 30th, both starting at 6 pm. If you have questions, just ask one or more of us before or after the meeting, I for one am always happy to answer what I can whenever asked and those who know me will assure you that I am always happy to express my own opinions.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  chris
  
  i understand what you are saying, but the main questions remain.
  
  why are attendance records unavailable.?
  why are the minutes of meetings not made public until they are irrelevant?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Wow, this debate is realy going to open up
  
  
  
  JAN
  Intresting that your view is toww council should be NON political, as you have used the Labour party to be both mayor and a Town cllr, very interesting!!!! and if the public were pesuaded that town council should be non political(which i dont think will happen)would you then leave the labour party to become an indy? theres some unanswered questions there!!
  
  My own view is that candidates should come from all walks of life, and if people want to vote for them as political persons or indys then its down to the public to do so.
  Im biased because im a labour person, but im trying to be even handed on it.
  LABOUR has more cllrs at present and i cant see that changing at present as the other 2 parties tory/indy are not campaigning to change or get more cllrs elected in fact the indy in priory hasnt beetn seen for over 8 years!!
  The Town council (as an outsider)has allowed itself to get into the situation its in, but that said the press are more likel to print negative stories
  but do print stories that Town council does as well. that are good
  
  Its fair to say most people will vote for those that they see doing summat sadly lots of people don't vote cos they don't see there cllrs from year to year, and that goes for all councils.
  
  On all councils there are some cllrs who work hard
  some are good in there wards and others good at speaking in the council chambers, some good at both.
  its also true tha some are useless at both.
  
  There has been a serious debate within the labour party about if the town council should be one of its priorities and at the moment they continue to stand candidates, I do have strong views that if they are up to it and report back to the party(remember they wouldnt be there had the labour party not selected them!) then all well and good, but they need to be accountable to the party and the local people.
  
  The mayor itself is one of tradition, and i have strong views on this, before the town council was formed and i had to be part of this local body I said at first meeting i would never be mayor, but supported others who wanted to be. I believe the days coming when people will look at the usefulness of this position, but that day is still coming.
  My understanding of the selection is that everyone can nominate someone as did the indies and labour
  if someone has more votes than the other then its democratic that someone will win! my understanding is that this meeting took place a democratic decision taken and this year D Smallwod elected
  im no traditional person, but i understand then mr precious knowing this democratic decision had been taken at a previous meeting then raised it all again at a traditional mayor making ceremony bearing in mind my view I feel that was the wrong place, and I know from speaking to people in the Town who did attend the mayor making they were not surprized this happened, but felt upset this mayor making was used to make the point they felt the decision had already been made.
  
  on the make up of the town council is there 2 conservatives?
  Roger frayne, who's the second? has someone else defected?
  I know its difficult to keep up with who's in what party these days never seen so many jump ship without loyalty interested to know who the second conservative is.
  
  Town councils across the country have political nominations, just look close by in Deal where a large number of conservatives were elected, thats where i cant get my head round it all, they have leading members say the are aganst political nominations, then they stand a load of political people and get them elected. thats double standards.
  
  
  So its interesting that in my view poltical parties(all of them)will continue to stand candidates, im interested that should public opinion change would Jan still stand for the labour party, or go indy?
  interesting thought
  
  well iv gone on to long
  lots to answer there, maybe Jan'Chris can come back
  and hopefully also howard can get the answers he requires cant be that difficult, iv asked for them before today and got them
  thats maybe summat for jan/chris/d hannant to look into?
  
  good luck
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Kieth, Jenny Morgan joined the Conservatives just before the last District elections.
  
  Howard, one way of promoting a change in the Town Council (ie. publication of attendance figures) is to write to the full council and ask for your letter to be put on the agenda. This will guarantee you a reply and mean that you can attend to hear it discussed. Certainly on that issue I would be fully prepared to speak on behalf of the proposal.
  I have always maintained that a councillors priorities should be ward, town then district, in that order, but it is obviously up to the electorate to decide if they should vote for a party or their ward first (and to decide which of the candidates best offer to do what is in their interests)
  
  Just to expand a bit on what the Town Council does, it should be mentioned that over the last year a great deal of time and effort has been spent on reorganising the committees in order to make them more effective and compiling an effective 'business plan'. If you call in the office you can get a list of councillors that will tell you which committees they sit on. For your information, I sit on Planning, Town & Environment and Sport, while also being on Joint Transportation (where the Town Council does not get a vote), Parking Group and the Nieghbourhood Forum. I am a school governor, chair of the George Cross for Dover Campaign, on the London Road Community Forum and a couple of others. Why not call and find out about your local councillor?
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Thanks Chris your explanation was a pretty full one of what we do,as always the public is intitled to go into the Town council office and ask for information, I myself serve on three committee's as for the politic's some times it not always needed when its for the good of this town, and in some case's we need to work together what ever side we are on.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  chris
  
  
  thanks for your explanation.
  how does one get an enquiry on to the agenda though?
  
  i wrote 2 letters on a subject, and sent e mails on issues.
  no response.
  
  recently, i have been getting prompt replies on various subjects from the
  people that man(or woman) the offices.
  these are non contentious matters.
  
  if i raised a major issue, would it be debated fairly, or would everyone
  back into their own corner?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  
  i appreciate that your long post came from the heart.
  just to point out one thing here.
  the post of mayor!!
  does it have to be a standing(or indeed horizontal) town councillor?
  
  i know that i am boring, but there have been many townsfolk that have contributed to dover life, that would never have been on the shortlist.
  
  i have mentioned people like the late jack hewitt, joe harman.
  even the never early terry nunn.
  the post just needs someone that would represent the town and show the good points, and have a bit of a personality.
  
  i will throw another name into the ring, horace(the barrow man) that can talk the hind legs off of a donkey.
  witness his way with the cruise customers when they negotiate market square.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  At the moment the mayor has to come from the town council.
  
  Howard
  AY bit of passion from me, and it haS prompted some interesting replies
  and some interesting lack of replies!!!
  Jan kindly gave a very short reply and I have in my short spell as a cllr worked with all political parties and non political people, but the big unanswered question;
  I f public opinion changed(and i dont fink it will) would our Jan stand as an indy against the labour party?
  
  One last point, im a great believer in devolving everything possible to the lowest possible council/community, but at the same time Town councils have to show they are responsible enough to be able to take issues/projects on.
  
  I was pleased how well Deal town council works, each cllr is given a subject to run with,and it works quite well
  but Dover at the mo doesnt give the same impression.
  
  Interested for an update/reply
  and hope Howard gets his replies soon
• Guest 640 wrote:
  With regard the usefulness of the Mayor...I am definitely one that sees real value in this role. How the process works that leads to selection is not really for me to comment on as I dont really know the ins and outs of it all, but I find that the recent mayors have been very good and fulfill a very useful social function. They are often very positive ambassadors for the town...and indeed very often the centre point at some poignant moving ceremonies where a dignified presence is needed. Our contributor Jan Tranter was of course Mayor and a very good one too.
  
  I suppose I am speaking from a media point of view as its always fairly necessary at various events and so on to have a central person of goodwill to declare this and that open. Then to get a picture or story. A Mayors role is not exactly a hard edged digging at the coalface political role but very useful for all that.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Mornng
  I have tried to be fair in my findings, I think in todays questions of the public where many can't afford to continue to pay for 3 councils
  you have to question the usefulness of 3 councils. I have before stated that we have 4 town councillors 3 District cllrs and a county cllr just in this ward alone!! thats to many.
  
  On the queston of a mayor, I fully understand some members of the public do look up to the mayor, but sadly over years the Town council has itself allowed itself to be looked upon as being unproffessional.
  
  The cost of having a mayor for 1 year(maybe town cllrs might like to post the cost?) maybe public wold have a different view?
  
  I'v also stated cllrs from all political parties have over years worked together that has always been, my question was, many town cllrs were elected by th labour party, and would not be doing the town council job had they not stood as a labour candidate, yet when they get elected they suddenly feel they are no longer a labour councillor?
  That doesn't fit together, so its ot about who you work with, but if your a labour cllr thats what you are, you dont get selcted by the labour party t be a town cllr to then disown the party as soon as you get elected.
  on top of this dn't fotget it would be LABOUR volunteers who would have campaigned to get these LABOUR town cllrs elected.
  bt its an interesting debate, mabe more answers sill required
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Many of our councillors do work together amicably and effectively, we also have councillors who spend more time counting party affiliation when worrying about committee membership than they do about ability and dedication. The role of mayor in the Town Council is, or should be, more than just a ceremonial one. It is up to the mayor to agree agenda's (a hint on how to get matters on to the agenda Howard), to chair full council meetings and they are entitled to attend all committees where they then hold a casting vote. However you look at it it is a full time job.
  
  Keith. I am not sure where your argument is going. Maybe, just maybe, some people feel that the Labour party best represents their socialist principals (whatever they are in this 21st century) and so stand for council under that clubs banner. Once in council should they then vote and act in accordance with the best interests of those that elected them, or should they, as you seem to be suggesting, vote Labour right or wrong just because the party helped them with their campaign?
• Guest 677 wrote:
  Yet again, alas, I am talking from a point of ignorance (a terrible thing for a councillors wife to admit) but it seems to me that in order to run an area efficiently the drilling down of departments is a necessity. To explain, we have town councils in each town, district councils in sections of the county and then a county council overseeing the entire county of Kent (which is quite large I believe). I appreciate that this means that there might be quite a lot of councillors in Dover but they are all have different responsibilities and whilst there should, of course, be communication between the councils the seperate councils should mainly concern themselves with their specific area. After all I believe it would be difficult for a county councillor to give a specific town the attention that it needs which is why we have town councils. Many hands make light work. What we need to do now is make sure that we have efficient councils and that can only really be accomplished if the electorate stand up and elect people who work for them.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Setting aside for the moment on how the Mayor is chosen the position of the Mayor and chairman of the town council is a privilege to hold all be it for only a year, you represent the people and the town how you act and conduct yourself outside the town reflects good or bad.
  Yes the mayor does receive an allowance to carry out those duties, as for the civic side that has always been a part of our history and Dover does our civic duties with pride.
  the fact that we have KCC DDC and DTC we cann't at this moment in time change, and how the Mayor is chosen we cann't change either but this year Dover town council has started to move forward with councillors and staff working together.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the issue of the town council and it's role is getting ever more complicated,
  keith is right, i feel, that if someone is elected on a party ticket then it is wrong that they do not go along with the party line.
  
  that is why i do not like politics being involved at this level.
  
  chris is an independent, therefore he can stand alone with his conscience, in principle.
  
  however, how many times has an issue come to the vote and all the labour members present vote one way and the indies the other.?
  
  the question i have raised about having someone outside of the town council being mayor has never been answered.
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Howard, let me assure you that I have never, and never would, vote against something I felt was right for the town just because it was a Labour proposition. Many votes are carried unanimously, which would indicate that this holds true for all the Alliance and both Conservative members. As for the reverse on Alliance and/or Conservative proposals I couldn't possibly comment.
  
  As for Keiths suggestion that the choice of mayor is openly decided in council, he knows as well as I do that it is a complete nonsense. The decision is made elsewhere and presented to the council as a done deal. The same holds true for committee chairs, with a list prepared elsewhere being presented at the appropriate moment. However, apart from this, most of us try to get along and do the best we can for Dover, working around the party rubbish to make the Town Council as effective as we can.
  
  
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Howard to answer your question as to an outside Mayor. In theory such a thing would be possible although it would take something like 60% of the registered voters to request it. Should such a thing come about there would then have to be an election, which is expensive, and obviously all the parties would put foward their own candidates. Any independent person choosing to stand would then face competing in terms of cost and volunteers with established party machinery. Then would come the question of how long a term they should have and how often the town wanted to pay out the cost of the election. Once elected who would cover the cost of the mayor making ceremony, five hundred just for the Town Hall?
  
  As flawed as it is our present system is probably the best option, although I do think that with all the robes and ceremony that goes with it we should be making more of a day of it that the whole town could take part in.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  chris
  
  i would like to refer to your last paragraph.
  
  i only found out that the "mayor making" was open to all this year.
  when i mentioned it to people, they all assumed, like me, that it was an invited ticket only affair.
  
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Sorry Howard, much as I would wish it otherwise, Mayor Making is a ticket only do, the only 'public' part is when the councillors proceed from the council offices to the hall in those robes.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i must have been misinformed on that matter chris.
  
  who gets the tickets?
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Most of the invitations are at the discretion of the in going and out going mayors, us mere councillors can scrabble for the spaces left over.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it appears that the people of dover shell out nearly half a million every year to a closed shop.
  
  good to know that our money is going to a good cause.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  I dont see there being much of a demand for the mayor to be a non councillor as was suggested earlier. In theory a road sweeper or a lavatory attendant could do it but who wants that anyway. The suggestion has a certain democratic ring to it its true but in practical terms it just wouldnt work. You need someone with a knowledge of the general decorum of public office, a skill to mix with people at all class levels , and a bit of a gift for public speaking. In my view we have had generally very successful mayors since Ive been here in Dover and all have been very good and fulfilled the role well.
  
  So that speaks well of the Council system that gets them there. Besides it is also a reward of office isnt it. Many councillors put in hours and hours of often thankless unpaid unrecognised work so if one or two of them make it to Mayor then I reckon they deserve it for all the quite hours they have put in beforehand.
• Mike West, Dover wrote:
  And what's wrong with road sweepers and lavatory attendants PaulB? That's rather a generalisation to make isn't it? I know someone who was a toilet cleaner, but it didn't mean he didn't have some decorum or wasn't able to speak properly. Your comments almost qualify as a personal swipe for which the forum boss has been known to ban people for three days!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah for...... !! were ye saving that one up!?
  there's nothing at all wrong with road sweepers or lavatory attendants.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  When you take on the roll as mayor you give up most of your time, its a very time consuming job and to do it well you have to be prepared to do just that, because believe you me you become public property and that does not suit everyone.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Presumably one isn't forced to be mayor..................
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  there is normally an unseemly struggle to attain the position.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  No no one one is forced into being Mayor just makeing the point that it is a job that take's alot of time and that you must be prepaired to give that time up, just answering those critics who may think the Mayor does not have a worth will part to play in our town.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i have not seen a post that says that the mayor does not have a role to play.
  
  the issue is, the selction process.
• keith, dover wrote:
  Chris
  Its correct the labour party chose its candidate for mayor and does so each year, and your only beef realy is that your independent party can not(and never will)muster enough votes to overturn this.
  
  
  Just remember my comments earlier,if the labour party didnt select candidates then its likely people LIKE jan would never have been mayor!
  dont forget its the labour sloggers who get these people elected.
  
  Chris, whilst you again only attack the LABOUR party, you have decided to miss my comments(well theres a surprize!!0 ) on Deal town council who have had tory candidates/cllrs for some years, and i note you make no comment on that!!
  
  on top of this I do note your alliance being close to the 2 tory cllrs on Dover town council that was never in doubt!
  
  notice question to JAN emains unaswered so will leave that one,
  to widen the picture a little.
  
  Politics has a bad name at the mo, MP's allowances, question time, to many local cllrs, There has to be a drastic change in politics, I cant see it happening, we need to engage people far more, sadly politics has gone sour, i hope it will change but i wont hold my breath.
  
  I used to love going into the Girls grammar/astor etc to speak with the pupils trying to engage the pupis in to politics, Bill newman, and clive meridith used to also go into schools with me, sadly i kept inviting the tories but rarely did they take up the offer.
  
  Its surprizing how much knowledge these school kids have,
  
  anyway apathy sadly wins these days, because more and more people cant see a reason for bothering, so its uphill for everyone .
  good luck
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Just to put the record straight.
  
  Jenny Morgan is not a Conservative Town Councillor and never has been.
  
  She put her name forward as a Conservative District Councillor in May last year for the Maxton, Elmsvale and Priory Ward but didn't get elected.
  
  She is an independant person and an independant Town Councillor, not part of the Dover Alliance, the Conservatives or Labour groups.
  
  She may not walk up and down the Folkestone Road, but her shop is her surgery; there's more people in there asking her questions or making suggestions, than buying, sometimes.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Keith
  You do seem to be avoiding the point here. What we are talking about is the fact that the Labour group makes decisions away from council, and thus away from open debate in council. It becomes obvious that this is the case when you see councillors with very poor attendance records all sitting in a row when certain decisions are to be voted on. I would also take it from your posting that you think some mayoral candidates are not worthy of the post and only get the post because the Labour group has decided that it is their turn. That is clearly an admission that there is something wrong with the way the Labour party in Dover deals with the Town Council, it is also unfair on Jan (who you chose to single out) as she worked hard during her year with the chain. I have not commented on the Conservative or Alliance members precisely because they/we make our proposals in council to be debated in council by all elected members.
  
  As to Deal Town Council, of course I do not comment. I do not serve on the Deal Town Council, although having spoken to many of them from both the yo yo parties (Labour & Conservative) I know from their Labour members that they cannot believe the way the Dover branch of their party carries on. I will not comment on that again as they were personal conversations and I will respect their privacy.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Roger
  thanks for clearing the Jenny affiliation up.
  
  Chris
  your getting a bit like our BAZ clouded visiion, you make it sound as though the alliance doesnt meet, come on who are you kidding.
  
  you should be even handed on the politcal parties if you truly believe in non political politics? but i do realise you have difficulty with our closeness with the conservatives.
  
  There has to be some accountability to a party if thats what you AGREED to stand as on a selection, otherwise you might as well have stood a indepenent?
  have always believed that cllrs of whatever party should be accountable, and I find this a failing in some aspects of all councils/parties
  
  From a purely personal point of view I believe the Town vcouncil would be better run from community active people, but finding enough to stand for every seat would be difficult.
  This is not the view of the LABOUR/TORY parties a the mo not only in Dover as i hav mentioned, or the Lib dems who also stand candidates in parish councils.
  
  It would b interesting to see if this ever happened how many of the present political appointments.cllrs actually got elected and under what banner they stood, and how much work they put in to get elected, and of course then, how much work they do.
  
  In my view the Town council has a role to play in Dover, and when it decides to establish itself as a respected body, then more work should come away from Districts/county to the Town council, but thats a long way off, and the county council will do its upmost for that not to happen to often, as iv said before 8 cllrs just for this one ward is to many
  its lucky that only a few are active as roger says, but it realy needs looking at. but i know its here to stay,nothing will change, we will have to make the best of it.
  
  Whilst on the subject of town councils im still waiting for SUE to come back from the District on which play areas the tories are to close, and from time to time she quotes the Town council may take some over? can anyone from town council confirm if they are to take any play areas over? if they are which ones? and if they are how were/are local people in that area being consulted?
  
  cheers matey
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I found this on the web by Martin Bright, the political editor of the New Statesman. It is part of a much longer article but this is the really interesting bit that throws light on what is currently going on in the Labour Party in Westminster.
  
  quote""""""""""""The post-Gordon era is upon us. Some within the Labour Party talk about the Prime Minister as if he were gone already. Ministers avoid the subject where they can, and his old enemies are openly hostile. Tortured discussions among backbenchers twist around turning points and tipping points. Was it George Osborne's inheritance tax speech, the election that never was, or the 10p tax rate that really did for him? Will it be the Glasgow East by-election, Labour's policy forum later this month, or the autumn party conference season that will definitively mark the end of the Brown era?
  
  The talk in Westminster is no longer about whether a period in opposition would be useful, but whether enough genuine talent would survive a landslide Tory victory to form a shadow cabinet. The question is not whether the Labour Party can renew itself in power, but whether it will survive the humiliation of defeat. There is the whiff of revolutionary defeatism in the air, and the distinct belief in some quarters that the party's interests would be best served by losing power. There are even those who somewhat relish the idea of leaving David Cameron in charge of the worsening economic situation.""""""""""""""" end quote
  
  There are increasing fears in the Conservative Party that Gordon Brown, in this mood of defeatism that is sweeping Labour, will embark on a 'scorched earth' policy over the next two years. In doing so it is feared that he will set out to leave David Cameron with an economy in such a mess that he will be unable to deliver on his pledges.
  
  We have seen just how Brown acts in a highly partisan way to wrongfoot the Conservative Party while ignoring the impact on the public. The evidence of that was over the 10% band/basic rate tax cut, he was told repeatedly of the impact it would have over 15 months before it was implemented, and he ignored it, telling his 'brownies' right until he was forced to back-track just before Crewe. Even then he still left 1.5m of the poorest worse off.... Other evidence are his trip to Iraq in the Tory conference and indeed the whole build up to the election that never was.
  
  Brown is unfit to govern, so unfit that a new word has entered the lexigon of the English language thanks to the Spectator, the 'brownie' a deliberate political lie.
  
  
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Keith
  once again you are dodging issues and ignoring the point of the postings. Acctually, the Alliance does not meet nearly as often as you seem to think, and then normally to discuss support for candidates at up coming elections. On our accountability, the Alliance firmly believe this belomgs to the Town and the electorate not to party bosses. It is called democracy which we believe means the people that elect you not the party who rules you.
  
  I was not aware that I had a 'relationship' with the Conservatives. Those in council I get along with just fine, as I do many of the Labour members. Outside of the council I have friends and aquaintances from many political backgrounds and I will support anyone doing something positive for the town (you may recall me being at a couple of your own Priory Forum clean-ups). If you only listen to one point of view you are cutting yourself off from the wealth of ideas and opinions there are in this great town of ours.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  In Dubris in the Express today,It said about me,The end of a political era about my resignation from the River Parish Council,sorry not so I am now looking at the St Radigunds Town council seat, and will put my hat in the ring to I like a good fight so lets be having it soon and may the best person win.
  
  Vic Matcham
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  victor
  i thought that you said last week that you has decided to drop out of politics?
  having just typed that, i suddenly remembered the cliche " a week is a long time in politics.
  
  st radigunds deserves you.
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Howard. YOU know me by now, you never know what is around the bend, and nor do I
  
  Vic Matcham
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  your post reminds me of that great line from "carry on up the khyber", when the local chieftain describes the british as " domestos", after a pause he adds "clean round the bend.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  just spotted something that i missed earlier.
  ms morgan is an independent town councillor, and has stood for the blues
  at district level.
  
  this is a lot worse than our ken, when he goes bed hopping parties, he does not stay with one while standing for another one.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW I cannot see Gordon Brown setting out on a 'scorched earth' policy as you put it, to deliberatly destroy the British economy just to wrongfoot the Conservative opposition. I think the position of Prime Minister is still regarded as a noble office and anyone in the position is sure to see it this way and would surely put state above anything so low. That would be almost treason would it not. While its true of course that political manouvering certainly goes on while in No 10 but a deliberate act of sabotage..well..no.
  
  Mr Brown may or may not be in the wrong job, he may lack the charismatic flair of his predeccessor, but is still a decent man.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - It has already started.
  
  I picked this up on the Spectator website, written by Fraser Nelson:
  
  quote""""""""""""""The Scorched Earth policy has begun. The FT has a hugely significant story – that the Treasury is “working privately on plans to reform Gordon Brown’s fiscal rules” which would “initially allow for increased borrowing”. In the vernacular, Brown has realised that if the Tories win the next election the he is now spending with Cameron’s Gold Card – every by-election bribe, every union sellout will be funded by borrowing with the bill sent to D. Cameron Esq. Cameron will have to tax us to pay for what Brown is today spending.
  
  The Treasury is claiming that it was always going to “review” its 40% limit after the current economic cycle ends. It will struggle to find a single sentence in any speech that will corroborate that. Danny Finkelstein said on Newsnight that this will undermine the whole New Labour project. My take is that Brown doesn’t care, not any more. Like a retreating army, he doesn’t want the advancing Cameroons to have any advantage at all. Debt is a boring subject, but it means we’ll all pay more taxes for longer. I have blogged here before about Brown’s existing ballooning debt, and here about how Britain over the last decade ramped up debt while properly-run countries vastly reduced it. This is big, serious and a problem: the consequences will be with us for years.
  
  Before too long, I suspect the Treasury will be saying how these fiscal rules are elastic, and how Brown never pledged they were set in stone. So here is a quote of Brown from Newsnight five years ago.
  
  “I can give you a guarantee that is our fiscal rules, that we must uphold. And that is the basis of... and that discipline is the basis on which I think people have seen this Government as competent.” """"""""""""""end quote.
  
  Brown was never 'prudent'. He is a totally partisan player and the good of the country comes second. Totally unlike Ken Clarke who did act in the interests of the country when Chancellor, even to the extent of taking decisions that were diffficult indeed for any Conservative, going totally against the grain for instance with tax increases. That certainly was one of the factors that counted against us in the election of 1997. Brown, as a result inherited a 'golden legacy' that he has squandered.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  nice to have you back???????????????????????
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it is nice to know that our pm is deliberately going out of his way to destroy our country.
  
  does anyone know the number of the caped crusader?
  he is our last chance.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard: There are actually serious concerns about his mental state right now. The 'bunker mentality' has set in and some serious commentators really are worried what it will lead to.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Barry are you talking about the P/M/ or me they say I am off my head at times.
  Vic [M]
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So I see Vic!!!!
  
  No, It is indeed the PM of whom I speak........
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it is good to get confirmation that victor is as sane as the next man.
  
  
  what if the next man is hannibal lector though?
  
  
  food for thought there.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Looking at the picture of the two politicians above one is reminded of the story in this weeks Dover Express about the possibility that our old friend and former forumite Antony Hook is considering standing again. Antony would of course by standing for the Lib Dems. However he would need to get a move on and stop dithering at the edges because the guys above in the editorial, Gwyn Prosser and Charlie Elphicke, have already covered considerable ground. Charlie has come from nowhere and put himself on the local map by attending almost every event locally and by being involved in allsorts of local issues..such as the hospital campaign and so on.
  
  " He doesnt have any local credentials " says Antony in the Dover Express page 9.
  
  He is getting them fast Antony. Get in touch Antony if yer out there...always good to hear from you again.
• Guest 641 wrote:
  A really enjoyable day was had by all at Pencester on Saturday, I wonder which party Star will standing for? He gets my vote! lol!
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  Antony Hook is saying Charlie doesn't have any local credentials????
  
  Then my question to Mr Hook, is well where have you been for the last how many months???
  
  I cannot believe that statement. Has Mr Hook been in outer Mongolia for the last 12 months?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Charlie of course lived in sandwich (not a million miles away) before moving to Deal.
  
  Then, of course, his mother in law is from Shepherdswell.........
  
  Antony, who we have not sen anything of for a long time now, does seem out of touch, just as Mandie says.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Good to see every one in the park on saturday enjoying the community safety day, with some good displays it certainly brought people out good to see gwen and charlie had time to get together for a photo.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Is that Nil Gwen, or Nell Gwyn.......?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  looks like that dog with chas prefers and trusts gwyn(gwen).
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Thanks guys for pointing that out.
• Guest 677 wrote:
  Actually if you look really close it looks as if Charlie's nice little doggie has a death grip on Gwyn's finger and through gritted teeth Gwyn is politely asking Charlie to get his dog to relinquish it.
  
  I didn't notice Gwyn at Connaught Park, was he there? Charlie and his family were very evident and obviously enjoying themselves, lovely to see.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  you have to give chas credit, he is the master of the photo opportunity.
  
  it will be important in a year ot twos time.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  While we are all in lighter political vein...
  
  What we are seeing in the photo here is this...Gwyn clearly has something very tempting and tasty in his hand, or indeed up his Labour sleeve, and could be seen to be wooing the initiative from Charlie's Conservative grasp. The little dog is unsure which way to jump right now, but is open to persuasion and could go either way. Charlie though is currently holding on to what's his with a firm grip, and is riding along on the crest of the Cameron Conservative bubble right now, but then you and I know what happens to bubbles! They just go poooof!
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Don't you mean wooof!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Always good for a photo opportunity, does look like the dog wants to leave out charlie and go to Gwyn(maybe like many other constituents)
  
  It always amazed me when Gwyn just a pleb and Davd Shaw was the MP both tried to avoid being at same meetngs/public events, it was stupid they appeaed to be frightened of each other.
  
  wow looking out the back at mo, sun is shinng its going to be a lovely day!!!
• max headroom, dover wrote:
  witch one would you take to crufts?
• Guest 656 wrote:
  Shure, there are three shining stars there. When it comes to a three dog race, I know who I'd put my money on lol!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i will apologise in advance for this awful pun,however it would seem that our gwen seems to consume the "winalot".
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Or Howard according to a latest political opinion poll printed in todays Dover Express it could be...'losealot'..if the pundits are proved right therefore Charlie could be your next 'darling' at the next general election.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  I will be standing again for M.P. for DOVOR just you wait and see.
  
  Vic Matcham
• Keith, Dover wrote:
  will ask again Vic, does hat mean you have left tories? or what will ou stand as?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Glasgow East was Labour's 25th safest seat. While that does not say much about what will happen in a General Election it does confirm the trends.
  
  The pressure will be on Brown and anything can happen. I expect a lot of 'hothouse' speculation to be going on in the run up to and during the Party Conferences.
  
  The big question.....will Brown and Labour be better off now to cut their losses and go for an earlier General Election? With the economy likely to deteriate further things are likely to get worse for them if they hold on.
  
  It may be that they will be forced into it. If a whispering campaign among backbenchers makes things more difficult for Brown he may decide to hell with it and go to the Queen. If Brown does get forced to resign, instead of calling an election will a new PM feel duty bound to ask for his own mandate? again on the premise that better to get the pain over with quickly and hope to save some seats in the honeymoon period.
  
  The country is certainly ready for a change of Government.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW I think it's unlikely that Gordon Brown would go for a General Election right now, as in some respects 'twould be like a turkey voting for christmas. In the Glasgow East extrapulation even his own seat would be in jeopardy.
  
  There was a large turnout in this recent election at Glasgow East too, which indicates that people specifically went out to the polls to vote Labour out. So things are looking bad.This seat as we know was Labour through and through.
  
  Even in the local Dover case the predictors in that website quoted by the Dover Express indicate a huge swing, so Labour MP's across the country will literally be shaking in their boots, and wont be keen to rush to the polls either.
  
  A week is a long time in politics as we know. Gordon Brown started out as a hero but went from hero to zero in very short time. I dont think Ive ever seen a reversal quite like it. So with that in mind Gordon will be hoping, given a break or two, that the pendulum could with a bit of good fortune and a strong tail wind maybe bounce back. Although its not looking likely right now.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  A Labour MP was on the radio a short time ago calling for Brown to resign. I expect there is a lot more agitation behind the scenes. He is a busted flush, damaged goods. It is no longer a matter of whether Labour will lose the next election but more a case of how many seats they will lose.
  
  The calculation all depends on what they think will lead to the lowest number of losses. I bet they wish Brown had gone to the country a year ago, if they wait until 2010 there is a good chance that they will have wished they had done it a year earlier....
• Guest 675 wrote:
  Can't quite see why the Conservatives are getting so happy about the Glasgow East results, they were way down in a very poor third. The only thing they really show (if repeated as a trend in a general election) is that it would be the beginning of a goodbye to Great Britain and hello to three or four new countries all wanting to go their own way.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Vic
  How many hats do you possess as it appears that your are throwing them into quite a few different rings?.
  
  What party will you represent?
  
  Surely the deposit money would be best used by taking your long suffering wife on a cruise(and I mean that with all best intentions).Sometimes Vic you have to say enough is enough or as my old Dad used to say ''if at first you don't succeed..then give up ....it's no good making a bloody fool of yourself''.
  
  However whatever you decide you have my best wishes..but no my vote!!.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Chris, its quite simple really, its a further indication of Labour's meltdown after Crewe and London.
  
  This is a seat in which we had little or no hope and found our vote holding up well. We moved from fourth to third and the SNP votes were gained at the expense of the LibDems and Labour. We were not squeezed at all and that bodes well for us in other more hopeful Scottish constituencies.
  
  Politics in Scotland are very different to England and we have relatively modest hopes there, at least in the short/medium term.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. I have just read a piece by Louise Bagshaw on Conservativehome.com regarding what we are discussing. Here is an excerpt......
  
  """""""""""""Saturday is normally the quietest day of the week for news junkies. Not today. As Fraser Nelson says on Coffee House, it's all kicking off. Brown is gone, ladies and gentlemen. Not even this Cabinet of Cowardly Lions could brief so desperately against him and fail to strike.
  
  The Telegraph talks of ministerial plots. The Times says the knifing will be after the summer holiday. The Guardian says the Cabinet want an "orderly resignation". Deals are being done between Purnell and Miliband. Jack Straw amuses Fraser Nelson, and me, with his desperate positioning to be caretaker leader. Alan Johnson may have something to say about that, Jack. Labour's all at it. Ferrets - meet sack.
  
  Some choice quotes from a bunch of indisciplined, sloppy Cabinet ministers who don't care how badly they knife their own party in the press (hey, great whipping there Geoff Hoon!). "We're a no nation party - can't win in Scotland, can't win in England, can't win in Wales," said one to the Telegraph. Another brave Cabinet minister confidently said to John Kampfner that there wouldn't be a Labour meltdown - "I think you exaggerate," came the reply. "We should win at least 100 seats next time."
  
  There's going to be a coup. It was all about momentum after Glasgow East, the hope being the recess would save Brown. Looks as though that is not happening"""""""""""""""""
  
  The whole point is that if or when Brown goes will his successor decide to 'soldier on' hopefully or cut his losses. He may decide that it is better to get the pain out of the way and re-build in opposition. he might also hope that he will get a honeymoon bounce in the polls, even a modest one, reducing the Conservative lead to 15% or so will save 50 Labour seats or thereabouts.
  
  There is another calculation of course. Brown was not elected Prime Minister either by an internal Labour vote or by a General Election. What would the public reaction be to another PM being imposed without a General Election, even if there is a vote in the Labour Party? Failure to seek public endorsement may cost them dearly.
  
  Whatever else the odds on a General election being held in 2009 are shortening fast. 6 months ago the odds were on a 2010 election.
  
  These certainly are interesting times.....
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Thank you Marek for that and you are right I do have a very good wife and also she is my best mate.
  But a man must do what a man must do.
  And I THINK I would miss it all and I hope some of you would miss me, if not me maybe the wife.
  But I must go on I do try and stop but it is not working out.
  
  Vic Matcham
• keith, Dover wrote:
  VIC
  I think you are getting very sound advice, some which i have given you in the past, but its your call
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  this recent political excitement reminds me of when thatcher went, kinnock looking like the cat that had got the cream.
  
  major then comes in all clean and smiling and then wins.
  
  the blue people have the champagne ready for when brown gets the night of the long knives.
  
  will history repeat itself?
• bern, dover wrote:
  It tends to do just that...........
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Political section is probably gone for a bit of a slumber and break in the high bright sun of summer..in fact the whole website itself is a bit quieter on these balmy near tropical days, as a computer is not always where you want to be when its hot and bright, I might be even taking a break myself, however was delighted nevertheless to put those pictures up above in the editorial section of Gwyn presenting Awards to some local quiet heroes.
• Guest 656 wrote:
  Yes, its good to see such local heros like Bill & Mac being honoured for the work that they have done tirelessly for sport over the years. Well Done and Congratulations to them both.
• howard mcsweeny, dover wrote:
  judging by the smile on the face on the chap sitting down, it would seem that mr P has shown him his latest expense claim form by mistake.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Ihave known Dick McCarthy and Bill Hay for over 30 years,and they are both dedicated sportsmen,they have promoted Refereeing and St Margerets F.C. in all those years and it goes to show you don't have to be young to be involved in Sport.
  Both of these people deserve thier awards for thier dedication and service to Sport.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Like John I have known Bill Hay and MAC for over 30 years without these volunteers many primary school children would not have got as much football as did.
  Bill worked tirelessly for St Margarets FC and built it up to big one of the biggest clubs in Dover, and in with this was its youth section taking kids off the street from 8 years old to adult.
  
  Mac on the other hand reffed footy for 50 years! this was at all levels locally, nobody realises when you turn out like he did every sat/sun/wed
  the sacrifice he made(*only having holidays outside footy season, and then only if theres no other sport to be organised.
  He also was president of the Dover primary schools footy assoc.
  He also organised(or in my case tried to) refs allocating them to tournaments i reffed with him since 1974 got to know him well, he dedicated his life to youth football and deserves this great honour.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it is refreshing to see people that do so much over the course of a lifetime. clearly not looking for plaudits.
  
  the saying goes " it is always the quiet ones".
• keith, Dover wrote:
  HOWARD
  I agree with most of your comments apart frm the quiet ones;
  BILL HAY AND MAC were NEVER quiet but when they shouted it was usually to make sure that the youth were given opportunities to play football, but when they did shout you knewthey had summat to say.
  
  Wel done to them both, an well done Gwyn for getting this one right.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Two great guys who have given so much to sport in this Town and area for so many years.
  
  I know I used to phone Mac up and ask him to run the Cubs annual sports day which was always on a Sunday afternoon in July and it was never a problem. Mac would be there with his team of local refs and he was great with the kids and took no prisoners with the parents.
  
  Congratulations to both, but why is it on the Political page?
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Coal can save Gwyn PROSSER SEAT or gave it to the blues.
  If Mr Prosser can get just one pit open again in kent he will get back in if not he will get his penison in two years.
  If the blues say yes to coal it will get them in.
  
  Vic Matcham
• KEITH, Dover wrote:
  Your cubs i WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE taking orders from MAC
  BUT did i listen?
• Guest 667 wrote:
  GAS & ELECTRIC COSTS
  
  Gas and Electric are going up again, not their fault though outside of all the supply Companies control.
  
  So the Conservatives sold off all the silver ware when they were in power which including the Gas and Electric and said it would all benefit us as there would be COMPETITION between the supplying Companies. The Conservatives big words of that time was, "there must be Competition", Competition would benefit us all.
  
  So where is this so called competition? British Gas put there bills up by 35% a few days later EDF will follow, then N.Power and so on. The only competition there is, is how high they can make the bills, how much profit one can make more than the other. It certainly is not how low they can keep the price to attract the customer.
  
  Can not here the Conservatives shouting that now, or how they will change any thing should they get back in.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  It illustrates the danger of adhering to any one party line regardless of sense or circumstances. The Blues insistance that commerce and competition were the priorities led to so many social inequalities and inconsistencies. Ditto The Reds insistance on no compromise a few years back. Sadly that No Compromise stance morphed into Blairs Compromise on all levels, which ws just as foolish and destructive.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  has everyone been following the fun with the governing party showing "solidarity" to their leader?
  
  apparantly they are all backing gordon.
  
  i have a sneaking suspiscion that it will all end like that bit in that shakespearian classic, where kenneth williams when confronted by his "friends" all carrying daggers, cries out "infamy, infamy, they have all got it in for me".
  
  they don't write stuff like that anymore.
• bern, dover wrote:
  They are flying towards him in a sweep of solidarity - for him it must feel like he is a flame to moths, but he is actually as dung to flies..........
• Guest 641 wrote:
  Very clever Bern, I think I'd better keep my lips buttoned on that one.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I see that while Gordion Brown hides and skulks (a habit he formed as Chancellor whenever Blair had a problem) it is left to David Cameron to be the leading British statesman over the Russia/Georgia issue.
  
  He made a very forthright statement a few days ago and won a lot of respect for it. It led to a lot of commentators talking of him for the first time as the PM in waiting.
  
  Now he is, on Saturday, going to Tblisi to meet with Georgian leaders.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Further to my post below this is what the BBC are saying, they as usual are a lot kinder to Brown than more balanced news outlets...
  
  """"""""""""Conservative leader David Cameron will visit Georgia on Saturday.
  
  Earlier in the week, Mr Cameron said Britain and the West should be doing more to prevent Russian aggression and called on Mr Brown to step up diplomatic pressure on Russia.
  
  BBC political correspondent David Thompson said Mr Cameron believed the British government had been slow to respond to the crisis, which flared up while the prime minister and foreign secretary were on holiday.""""""""""""
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Hellooo BarryW...as you can see we have kind of let this section slumber for august..but will return full blast when the politics picks up again.
  
  But re Georgia..
  The worlds most famous Georgian, ex President Shavernadze, a most engaging chap, and for a long time foreign ambassador extraordinaire for the Soviet Union was interviewed on Radio4/Today just a few short days ago, saying that Sakashvilli, his own countryman, will have to answer for causing this crises when the situation dies down.
  
  Its a bit sickening to see the worlds leaders dangling on an american string and condemming Russia out of hand. Its true the Russians may have now over-egged the situation but were not, not, the initial aggressors, so if you play with fire..etc etc .
  
  Condoleeza Rice sharing a platform yesterday with Sakashvilli wasnt terribly convincing. They have shared platforms with nutters before if it suits their aims. Sakashvilli has the PR advantage in that he is able to speak English and will give an interview to anybody and everybody so is therefore managing to shout loudest. His message is getting out to the west and is being swallowed whole by a media desperate for a story in sleepy august, but is it the right message ...then we get all that stuff followed en masse by a load of dodgy russian rapist type stories, most just the usual propoganda.
  
  Maybe we in the UK are better not to shout too loud on this one.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Hi PaulB. As I have previously commented I am ambigious about whether its Georgia or Russia who is right, six of one half dozen of the other.
  
  The point here is rather different.
  
  People are seing DC in a statesmanlike, national leadership role. They can now visualise DC as a PM on the world stage. You can contrast that with Brown and his rather weak and belated comments after DC had spoken out (and to much acclaim). The comparison is not a good one for Brown. As a PR man you will know the importance of image and perception. Politically this is a major step forward for DC.
• bern, dover wrote:
  ...and rather sad that the violence and hardship in other countries is the basis for it.......one mans war is another mans photo-op and sound bite.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the thing i find most depressing is the cold war style rhetoric from the outgoing president.
  
  as for Ms rice, only a few months ago she referred to the russians as "the soviets"!!
  
  the americans are playing a dangerous game by pretending they are supporting georgian democracy.
  georgia is a bought and paid for ally of the US, mr putin is a dangerous man, with ice flowing through his veins.
  
  the recipe makes for possible disaster.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  To change the subject.
  
  I see reports today that the Government are planning to change the local election date from May to June so it is on the same day as the European elections.
  
  The reason is because the Government are expecting to be trounced and want to have all the bad news over in one go rather than two lots.
  
  Does anyone else find that contemptious of the public and democracy?
  
  Is their anything that they will not change for partisan political purpose?
  
  Just what does it say about this Government? They have already written off winning the next election (or any election) and all they are doing is trying to limit the electoral damage and stuff principal.
  
  What else will they be trying to do I wonder?
  
  I have also heard that they are planning to give in to Union demands and legislate to make firms hold open jobs for up to a year for a woman on maternity leave.
  
  This would be utterly devastatiing to small businesses that dont have the manpower flexibility and resources of bigger firms. Businesses, particularly those with just a few employees, will be further disincentivised to employ any woman of child bearing age.
  
  Of course the Government are anticipating that and plan to provide paternity leave on the same basis!
  
  Once again we see a Government that is willing to destroy many small businesses for its own ends. Many business people, like me, will simply less inclined to take the risks involved in expanding their operations. Higher unemployment will be the result.
  
  Time for this wretched excuse for a Government to go.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  
  Barry is the reason not that it is hard enough to get people out to vote in one major election, let alone getting the great British public out twice in a matter of weeks.
  
  People in this Country are getting tired of “You are always wrong and we are always right politics” The public are tired of the lies and broken promises of both the main parties. So may be Gordon Brown thinks if we have the two elections together we get more to the ballot box win or loose.
  
  I long for the day when a political party leader stands up faces his opposite number and says " Thats a dam good idea" Still I always did live in cockoo land.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  there are a lot of us that think that way harry.
  
  some very good brains have left the house of commons because of the yah boo debates.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Evidence howard? - none is the answer....
  
  It is naive in the extreme to think that this change is for anything other than partisan political reasons.
  
  It is not good for democracy to 'combine' polls like this as you cannot have a focussed campaign on European issues on one hand and local issues on the other.
  
  The June date for the European elections was originally set deliberately years ago to avoid the traditional local election date for exactly this reason. For decades now we have had polls in may, followed by June, indeed Mrs T tended to await the local results before deciding on the date for a general election. It did no harm to electoral turn outs then and there is no evidence to suggest that it harms turnout now.
  
  Yes, it is not the first time that polls have been combined but that is no defence of it. Blair of course had local elections on the same day as the general election, again for purely partisan reasons, because he thought (in 2005) that it would minimise the damage done to him from local election losses.
  
  Changing the date of local elections is a different matter to calling a general election on the same date. This is for the simple reason that local elections, unlike general elections, are meant to be on a regular cycle.
  
  The last time the local election date was changed was as a result of the foot and mouth which restructed travel in parts of the country where these elections were held. That is totally different to the reasons for why it is happening now.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Whatever the reason, the result will hopefully be more people voting. Job done.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Since 1997 10 x Tory MP's have changed parties.Three joined the Labour Party namely
  1999 Shaun Woodward
  2005 Robert Jackson
  2007 Quentin Davies..who left cos he critised the Tory party under DC's leadership.
  
  During the same period no Labour MP has left to become a Tory.Enough said really.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Ha!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  mmmmmmmmmmmm...... so Marek what is the relevance to the posts on election timing?
  
  OK a bunch of careerists who could not cut the mustard in the Conservative Party went and joined Labour, so what? None of them were exactly missed by is though they probably raised the quality of labour representation!!!!!
• Paul Watkins wrote:
  Have to say , both Bill Hay [my patch]St Margaret's & Dick Mc Carthy who I knew ----years ago are good examples of local people who have supported young people & sport.
  
  THEY DESERVE THEIR AWARDS
  
  Watty.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Barry - granted it is rare that someone from the Blues has the insight to see the light and the courage to publicly admit it and change sides, but each person is entitled to their epiphany!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  
  what do you need evidence about?
  
  mind you, there is no need to answer, as you have already said there is none???
• Guest 645 wrote:
  BarryW
  No relevance really just enjoyed reminding everyone that all is not as cosy as you would lead us to believe in the Tory camp and sniping about election dates and timetables is also irrelevant.Its what happens at the ballot box that matters.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  marek
  
  when the election eventually comes(yawn), there will be questions asked both locally and nationally, that will have to be answered by the opposition parties.
  
  neat photo opportunities will mean very little then.
  manifestos will be issued and the public will have something to base their vote on.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - at the election it will also be the Government that will have questions to answer with a manifesto and policies open to examination.
  
  At the moment Labour policy announcements are arising from two sources: The Unions who will want their pound of flesh in exchange for bailing out the bankrupt Labour party - we have already seen these deeply damaging proposals on maternity and paternity leave. Secondly they have been pinching Conservative policy ideas and watering them down. I have lost track now of the number it has reached, there were at least 7 or 8 in the 'draft' Queens Speach alone and that does not include Non-Doms, Inheritance Tax, the points system for immigration and more.
  
  When the election come they will not be able to get away with this.
  
  Right now we are seeing announcements daily from the Conservatives and are getting many hints at the shape of the next manifesto. The various Conservative policy groups are brimming over with ideas and inspiration.
  
  That manifesto will be launched around the same time as the Labour one, in case you ask....
• bern, dover wrote:
  Ideas and inspiration are cheap - when they are rooted in fact and practicalities and can be evidenced I will be impressed. And that's across the colour spectrum!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Surely the points system for immigration we stole from the Aussies who have operated that system for years.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  It was in our manifesto for the last election and, yes, it is used by the Australians and the Conservatives used their experience in defending Labour atacks on it being unworkable and rascist.
  
  Funny that, a policy denounced by Labour as unworkable when in a Conservative manifesto, is then a few years later announced as Labour policy.... think what that tells you about Labour!
• bern, dover wrote:
  That they are responsive to changes and adaptable with circumstance? Able to move with the times and create new policies which assimilate developing events?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  No Bern - What is says is that they are utterly shameless and quite willing to lash out making absurd claims that carry no justification. A Party lacking in principals, direction and thought that will do anything, promise anything, to retain power.
• bern, dover wrote:
  That could apply to any shade of any colour currently scrapping over our votes. One of the saving graces of party poiltics is that it embeds principles in the process reducing the "presidential" need for personality politics viz USA. Sadly Blair, hot on the heels of Thatcher, chose to corrupt that ideal and we have a grey and patchy hinterland of partial presidential partial principle-led politics, which has directly led to parties turning themselves inside out to snare a vote. Realisticlly parties will always be vote-catching, it's what they do, but when one has the luxury of acknowledged party differences related to principles and ethics it is less of an imperative to big-up personalities. Personalities are always part of the process, but only part, until recently.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I often take a look at what the foreign press are saying about our politics and political leaders. Being more at arms distance I find what they say an excellent insight about how our leaders are doing.
  
  Getting back to the Georgia issue and Cameron's visit I picked this up on Amercan Spectator. This is just a flalvour of a very long article...
  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  Cameron’s Looking Tough, By Hal G.P. Colebatch, Published 8/22/2008 12:07:45 AM
  
  Suddenly, Britain's Tory leader doesn't seem so wet any more.
  
  I have been critical of British Tory leader David Cameron in these pages and elsewhere, mainly along the lines that he was wet and lacking in gumption and leadership.
  
  It is time to say, therefore, that in his first real test, the Georgian crisis, he has shown backbone enough to put the doomed and useless government of Gordon Brown and much of the leadership of Western Europe to shame. Cameron is looking like a leader.
  
  While, characteristically, the Brown government dithered ineffectually, Cameron became the first Western leader to fly to Georgia and stand side by side with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgia's other leaders and parliament, .................
  
  ...............it was the first clear and courageous sign to Georgia -- and Russia -- that it had not been abandoned by Europe. It was the sort of thing a Reagan, a Thatcher, or a Churchill might have done -- an instinctive affirmation of right against wrong. With all Georgia under imminent threat of direct Russian military attack, Cameron's visit was also physically brave.........
  
  ..............With the shambolic Brown government gaining just 3% of the vote in a recent by-election, Cameron is very unlikely to be leader of the Opposition much longer. He is Britain's Prime Minister-in-waiting, and this makes his gesture far more significant: it is not a commitment that can now be easily repudiated..............
  
  .........Cameron also showed good sense and statesmanship by backing Brown's eventual response and by refusing to criticize the British government for its appearance of indecisiveness. That, however, was done by the Government's own members.............
  
  ...........Cameron today is looking as if he has he moral fiber that Britain's next Prime Minister is going to need, both for steering the ship in a turbulent international situation and, by extension, for repairing the terrible cultural and social damage in Britain today which is, in large part, a legacy of 11 years of Labour misrule.
  
  Hal G. P. Colebatch, a lawyer and author, has lectured in International Law and International Relations at Notre Dame University and Edith Cowan University in Western Australia and worked on the staff of two Australian Federal Ministers.
  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  Those who were claiming that cameron was doing no more than grandstanding are now proven to be mistaken. This reaction shows that he is now starting to build up a status internationally that will be important for him (and us) when he is Prime Minister.
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  I think I need to remind myself that DC actually just flew into a country. He got on a plane and met people. Charm alone doesn't cut it.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Afew thoughts from the heart;
  
  
  I watched the many postings on the next general election and give a few pointers on what Ithink.
  
  
  On Gordon BROWN
  Yep he needs to make\his mind up and he will i'm sure go to to the wire just l.ike previous tory govts have done
  it isn't good for the country, but as I say all govts sadly do it.
  
  He needs\to get his a*** in gear if he wants to re elect a labour govt, only time will tell on that one.
  
  He isnt at the moment showing leadership as he should, but DM is also showing the tories have no policies and under scrutiny keep crumbling
  so as iv said before everyone is the loser all the time we get this yoo ha politics.
  
  ONLOCAL ELECTIONS
  I don't think it matters when they are called people do vote for local people i believe our very own sue proved that in RIVER
  she was an active Lib Dem cllr and mid election changed to a tory and still held her personal vote in RIVER shes one of the few politicians able to do that.
  
  quite honestly theres so litt;le local councils can do these days that whatever party is in control would do wouldnt matter
  all govts have\ taken away powers from councils and lumped on more things for hem to do without full payment for doing so, thus costing me and you !
  
  I think more people would vote in local elections if they saw there local cllrs, in many wards cllrs are not seen from one year to the next and this cllrs from all 3 parties and the indies.
  
  I cant afford a conservative govt, looking at our baz's views it shows\where they would go;
  
  do away with
  all credits(ie family tax credit, pensioners credit, child allowance etc)
  paternity leave
  and theres lot more
  
  
  So we would move back to those dreary days of the cloth cap on the gate hoping to get a job for the day if the nice businessman wanted you from the millions unemployed
  I dont want them days back.
  
  DESPATCH BOX
  Iv never seen such a stupid half hour in my life, it means nowt, anyone watching it would be switched off politics forever, and the more its shown on TV the less people that vote.
  needs to be a better way
  
  BIG CHANGES
  We need big changes to politics and not as boring as they are at present and not just ticking boxes when needed.
  and confidence of public needs to be earnt.
  
  All the MP';s and leading members of Tory, Lib Dem Labour and others all earning stupid wages and 3 houses etc, very difficult to justify
  
  just a few thoughts from me
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some valid points there keith.
  
  like yourself i find the debates in the commons laughable, we hear who is good at the despatch box.
  
  very few people care who is good at the despatch box, hence mr hague getting a whole selction of knives in his back.
  
  councils are being put upon by each successive government.
  more is demanded without funding to follow it through.
  it came out on here that tourism was effectively axed in favour of an ASBO dept.
  
  no-one has been in the ASBO office for the last 3 weeks to my knowledge.
• bern, dover wrote:
  IDS was seriously undervalued, and I am, as you may know, not of his persuasion!!! It was only IDS who kept a cool head when the eejit threw purple flour in the house of commons - everyone in authority suddenly forgot their leadership skills and just fled, without thought of the consequences. It wa only IDS who urged everyone to stay put in case it was chemical stuff. My money would be on him in a crisis!!! And he had a good grasp of English and its nuances!!!
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Another leader at the wrong time was our willy hague
  hre I think had\the leadership skills but the party of his was in turmoil at the time and he was nebvr going to survive.
  think he will come back once people see through DC.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Hellooo Keith
  You must have been away on a summer holiday..that kind of thing shouldnt be allowed..all that foreign travel..humbug !!lol
  
  I think your comment about the cloth capped workers waiting at the factory gate is very apt. Hopefully it wont get quite that bad again..but...the way they lay off workers and re-employ at lower wages these days is a disturbing trend, and indeed may have actually caused the global recession.
  
  Because the poor workers in the USA en masse couldnt pay their mortgages back, the world went into a massive slump. This kind of re-emply contract stuff may well have caused this huge problem in the first place as the idea was born and fostered in the USA.You amble along paying your mortgage quite nicely then you are hit by this re-emply contract at cheaper rates, then you cant manage to meet your payments.
  
  Almost a bit like what happpened to Carol Vorderman cept on a grand scale in her case.
  
  Read the posts on the DHB article in FEATURES & COMMENTS..formerly on the frontpage, some great posts from all sides.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Yep paul been to BOGNOR with the kids.
  can you read open letters page please.
  
  Iv always believed in trade unions because the working man/woman has not much else to defend it.
  We\have seen from Barryw postings the true reflection of wot a conservative govt would bring should that dreary day ever return(some of which I highlighted) like Barryw has\indicated the working person should in there eyes accept there lucky to have a job, and not enjoy any rights,
  In barrys eyes they don't believe you should be paid the minimum wage!!
  Those views are still there and more worrying for the likes of a lot of us they are at a high level of the conservative party.
  
  I fully accept that some trade unions in the past did go to far to the left, but theres so many obstacles stopping that happening now that they make trade unions ineffective.
  thats a great shame because there has to be a balance between good business and the needs of the working man/woman
  we shouldn have to live in this fear of will i be in work tommorow?
  trade unions/business's should be able to talk to each other(on an even playing field) not like the restrictions on trade unions at the mo.
  and hopefully work together for a better future.
  this isnt happening at present because of these restrictions, and its helping no one.
  
  I don't want to blame the tories for everything, because the Labour govt didn't do to much for the trade unions either.
  Wot is\clear is MAGGIE was a good leader for her own people, and sod everyone else, and you have to respect her for that.
  Labour didn't learn(as DM is not learning now) both major parties are going for middle England where the vote is and sod everyone else, and just trying to sound good, no one believes them, more and more people are switching off politics, and thus voting figures goes down and down.
  politics is in to political melt down at the mo, and sadly I don't see any changes from any of the main political parties, all are interested solely in getting to number 10, very few politicians are realy interested in you and me. sad, but its true.
  
  It's sad because it isn't going to change, and so politics will go on in the same dreary way, wonder at what point people will say hang on should these people be representing me? it won't happen cos people are fighting to hold down jobs, hold onto houses, etc etc so it won't happen, and so we will go from one party to another, or even stay with one party, but as time goes on more and more people won't vote
  sad reflection but its true .
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  It is historically evident that for Governments the best way to Keep The People Down is to disempower them by, for example, keeping wages low, reducing health care, chipping away at rights - that way The People are too busy trying to support families/maintain health or healthpayments/struggling to retain rights to focus on the biggger picture and oust the Powers That Be. Our focus narrows down to the bare minimum and leaves little room for anything else.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BERN
  We are at one on this, but as I said in my short earlier posting its unlikely to change.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Come the revolution.........!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  an interesting read here, keef raised the issue of the trade unions abuse of power.
  
  it was this very thing that brought down the labour government in 1979.
  
  a major problem in our country sometimes seems(in my humble opinion)
  that whoever gains power, abuses it.
  
  it used to be big business in league with the blue crowd, then big business in league with the red lot.
  
  the ordinary citizen just has to go along with it.
  
  the dover express this week carried a good editorial about the good times starting at the later years of the blues and carrying on over a decade of the reds.
  
  suddenly, things have changed!!!
  people filling up their car, opening the bills they recieve from the utilities,
  reaching the check out at the supermarket are hetting nervy.
  
  the evidence shows that people now shop more at the discount outlets, eat out less, go to the pub less and generally "make do and mend".
  
  all this adds up to more job losses and insecurity.
  the party in waiting are in disarray as to what to do if and when they take over.
  dc wishes to carry on the red spennding programme with no tax cuts for a long time.
  
  the knife wielders in the wings are demanding immediate cuts in taxes and spending.
  where do we stand in all this?
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Howard
  your right about my comments but trade unions are a must these days,
  
  BERN
  SADLY people not ready for a revolution
• bern, dover wrote:
  Howard, I always think that old phrase "whoever you vote for the Government gets in" is very apt........
• Guest 645 wrote:
  A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy.
  
  Benjamin Disraeli,
  Speech in the House of Commons, Mar. 3, 1845
  British politician (1804 - 1881)
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  trade unions that look after their members are a must, i agree.
  however, a lot of them seem to be infiltrated by .
  
  for example, the last fire fighters dispute, the leader of their union made a public utterance about bringing down the government of the time.
  i doubt if their members elected him to do that.
  
  a recent dispute by london underground workers, was all about safety reasons said their leader.
  hence londoners were subjected to chaos, loss of earnings and a generally nasty lifestyle.
  
  the document presented to london underground by the union concerned
  made 29 points.
  2 were about safety, 27 about pay and conditions.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the missing word at the end of the second line of the last post was "egotists".
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Is anyone else sick to death of having the American elections dominate the news all day every day? Obviously I know it's globally important but you'd think there was nothing else going on at home at the moment. I awoke to Radio 4 the other day and it was all that was talked about from 8-8:30. And it's going to get worse from now on with more and more coverage. I mean really, enough is enough....
• keith, Dover wrote:
  I do enjoy it but not sure it pleases eveyone
• bern, dover wrote:
  and another thing........why is it the Britain always bangs on about other countries gold medals almost before GBs own....The USA hardly even acknowledges that others were involved inthe Olympics!!!! I know GB is a Good Sport country, but let's celebrate at home first!!!!!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes we are getting a rather large helping of American politics these days. This is clearly because the race for the nomination amongst the democrats turned very bitter and therefore media gripping..even though they are all on the same side. And all that was before the election proper, which will now kick into play. Normally you wouldnt get all that much coverage at the nomination stage.
  
  Barack Obama, current flavour of the political month, may have peaked too soon because here in europe we may indeed all be a tad sick of looking at him right now, so surely it could well be that way in the USA. People may vote for opposition McCain, the ready willing war toughed oven chipped hero, just for a rest from the onslaught of..niceness.
  
  Twas a pity Hillary Clinton didnt win her nomination, it was a close run thing, but she certainly adds spark and entertainment. Nobody nods off with Hillary in the house...
• bern, dover wrote:
  Actually, I am with you about McCain - although his teeth rival Obamas, there is an edge to him and a roughness that appeals more than the syrup dripping off the Democrats......
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  During our 'silly season' when British political stories are at a low it is hardly surprising that there is a great deal of emphasis on the US elections. They will, after all, impact on the whole world.
  
  As for the candidates. I do believe that the best two got through the preliminaries. I have posted previously how I quite like Obama who I find far preferable to the revolting Clinton. I do, however, prefer McCain, party because the Republicans and the Conservatives have historically had an affinity and I share many of their values. And that is despite Bush, incidentally who, frankly, while not being as bad as many on the left portray him, has not been good for the USA.
  
  There are many Conservatives who have put aside their normal preferances to support Obama (Francis Maude among them). I am not totally clear why that is.
  
  I do agree that a McCain win is looking more likely now and I personally hope for that, but I nevertheless hope that Obama distinguises himself and does well because I think that will be good for American democracy.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Still with the US Presidential election.
  
  I have just seen news reports that heavily tip the Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate.
  
  They say it would be an inspired choice. She is in her mid 40's and according to reports 'stunningly beautiful'. I can't comment of the latter as I have not seen her though I look forward to do so!
  
  Apparently she is a 'pro-life' right wing, mum of 5 children, one with Downs Syndrom and the youngest being still in nappies. Her record in office seems to be highly regarded. She has one son in the Army.
  
  It is thought she would seal the election for McCain and she certainly compliments him broadening the appeal of the ticket.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  mrs palin is an interesting choice
  she is married to an eskimo and has 5 kids.
  admits to smoking marijuana when it was legal in alaska.
  that should please the liberals.
  
  
  for the conservatives, she is anti-abortion, like to kill animals, has a fondness for moose burgers, and is a lifetime member of the national rifle association.
  
  for those not interested in politics, she was runner up in a miss alaska beauty pageant.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  He would have been better off choosing Michael Palin
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yes howard. She certainly looks a good choice having read a lot more about her.
  
  1/ Her son is off to Iraq next month so that will play well
  2/ In having a downs syndrom child she demonstrates a strength of character, apparently refusing to have an abortion, something she abhors.
  3/ Seems to be a woman of principal.
  4/ She is popular and regarded as competent in Alaska. She has clean up the state administration and is hot on environmental issues.
  5/ She has femenist credentials
  6/ Inexperienced in foreign affairs but is only in the no2 position.
  
  Overall she has aspects to her character that has an appeal accross a wide spectrum of the US electorate.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  7. She has only been a Senator for 2 years so has a wealth of knowledge about foreign affairs. and US internal politics.
  
  I feel that she has not been picked because of her diplomacy or knowledge but chosen by McCain in order to attract female voters,maybe younger voters.Remembering that McCain would reach 80yrs should he be elected and complete 2 terms of office.She could end up being America's First female US President..by default.Call me a cynic but McCain hasn't chosen her as someone he can turn for advice in a crisis but purely for her vote catching capabilities.
  
  Give her a world map and a few pins and ask where little ol England is?
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Here are the real reasons why Palin was selected for VP as stated by McCain followers
  
  1) A energetic, young, fresh face who will energize the electorate
  2) Not connected to the current administration
  3) Pro-Life
  4) Pro-Gun
  5) A woman or minority to counter Hillary or Obama and put to rest the idea that America only elects white males
  
  They omitted to include the link she has with Dave Cameron..they both smoked dope the only difference was that it was legal in Alaska and banned at Eaton.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek. Actually she has not been a Senator at all but the Governor of Alaska. In the USA Governors tend to be seen as better potential Presidents than Senators because a Governorship in an Executive position while a Senator is not.
  
  I think I am right in saying that no successful Presidential ticket has lacked a Governor on it and Palin is the only Governor on either ticket.
  
  In her two years she has become quite popular in Alaska and has shown a high degree of competence challenging a somewhat corrupt political system in Alaska and reforming it. There are bumber stickers apparently along the lines of 'Alaska, the cioldest State of the Union has the Hottest Governor'
  
  Her main weakness is her lack of foreign affairs experience but as pointed out as Veep she would gain that experience very quickly.
  
  Yes of course she was picked for her vote winning potential but she is also a risk in that respect and is regarded as a risky choice.
  
  She adds freshness to the McCain ticket along with a change agenda and this helps counter two of Obama's advantages. She has also captured the headlines away from the Obama speech, good timing by McCain.
  
  I have to say that I have not got too interested in the US elections this time around but her selection has certainly sparked my interest. I wonder what impact it will have on the US electorate over the next two months, no middle way, she will be the killer blow, either propelling McCain into the White House or ending his chances.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Are we in the U.K. or the U.S.A.?
  
  Vic Matcham
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Vic
  You have juat confirmed my worst fears about you,that you are not of this planet never mind country...lol.
  My only surprise has been that you didn't throw yet another one of your multitude of hats into the US Presidential Election Campaign.The people of America will never know what they have missed out on.
• Vic matcham, River wrote:
  Marek.
  I like that one,well said.
  Vic(m)
• Guest 640 wrote:
  There is little opportunity for the common man in American Politics as the first requirement is not knowledge wit or wisdom, no its simply that you have to be seriously rich to enter the fray. No room for people like Vic or indeed most of the rest of us. There is very little REAL voice for the common people alas, except for rather well off types like the Clintons and so forth telling us how caring they are and how at one they are with the common people.
  
  As they say in the USA...money talks, and if you dont have money you dont have any kind of voice. Your only choice is to be cajoled for your vote by the latest rich dude who shows the nearest he can muster to genuine concern.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Campaigning for president can be a very expensive proposition. Running a campaign to win a presidential primary can range in cost from $50 million US Dollars (USD) to over $100 million USD. By itself, this cost is already enormous. However, there’s even more that must be spent to run for president. Once the primaries are over and the nominees begin their campaigns to win the general election, an additional $75 million USD is typically spent.
  
  George Dubya decided to forego the Federal fund and raised his own cash for the 2000 election campaign.He spent twice the amont totalling $100 million.
  
  So PaulB you are correct in your assumption,America will never have a President who is of the people and for the people..until they all have at least $100 million in the bank to spend.
  
  Vic how are you fixed?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are so right Marek and PaulB. campaigning in the USA is very expensive indeed and it a lot easier if you are rich.
  
  That said of course, candidates do not as a rule spend their own money. They do have to get the support of wealthy donors and special interests and that can, (I agree with what I anticipate you would say), be very corrupting.
  
  The selection of Sarah Palin and Veep candidate is an interesting one. She is not particularly rich, more middle class (one with blue collar roots) than very wealthy. She has clearly been able to get a long way despite that and in Alaska has challenged a number of vested interests and has fought a corrupt system and is well regarded there as a reformer.
  
  If she and McCain win then it will be interestign if she becomes beholden to special interests or whether she will be able to still challenge them in Washington. As veep she will also be in pole position to be the first female President. Perhaps she could vindicate the American system, or otherwise!!!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  A little known fact about Ms Palin is she not entirely free of scandal. She is currently under investigation by the state legislature for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal of the commissioner for public safety, Walter Moneghan. Mr Moneghan alleges that he was fired because he was reluctant to sack a state trooper who was involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle with her sister, Molly McCann. The governor is said to be co-operating with the investigation, which is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French.
  
  It's amazing how these skeletons appear out of the cupboard.I would hate to run for any type of office..even office clerk.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, I am actually well aware of that and you can be sure McCain is.
  
  They are very confident that no problems will result.
  
  Have you found out exactly why this happened? I think you will find that you too would do exactly the same if you were in her position....
  
  The state trooper threatened to kill his wife, who was Palin's sister. And his father in law. The moron actually tasered their 11 year old stepson when the stupid boy asked him to!!!!!!!
  
  For threat to kill and the latter, he recieved 10 days suspension, reduced to five. Big deal....
  
  I actually think the American public, finding out about that will earn her brownie points!
  
  Incidentally - the American left are so worried they have started a groundless blogging character assination on her. They claim she is really the grandmother to her downs syndrom son. This was the fifth child she had, in her 40's, the age at which the chances of a downs child increases significantly. She was pictured and interviewed on tv while showing her 'bump' incidentally.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  BarryW
  As all good politicians state..I shall wait for the outcome of the inquiry before commentating further.I was merely stating facts.She is quoted as saying when questioned about taking cannabis..I cannot claim unlike Clinton(Bill) that I did not enhale. If McCain is elected she will only a heart beat away from becoming the first female US President.
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Boys, boys, which of us does not have skeletons in our cupboards? And there is always a back story to every tale so I am reluctant to comment on Palins history . However, I am rather surprised to find myself leaning to the right in this case......proof positive that 1) I am open minded and 2) there are positive things on all sides of the spectrum! Banish Dogma!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  try to be serious bern, if we banished dogma, what would happen to market forces?
  
  i will leave you time to ponder that.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Dogma is the unshaken belief that something is true, regardless of proof. The term dogma is frequently misused as interchangeable with doctrine. Doctrine is, rather, the interpretation of dogma.Bush is a sufferer from this disease along with the Tory Party.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, you should read Lord Blakes history of the Conservative Party from Peel to Thatcher. It is a very good read and fascinating for anyone interested in history, whatever your own beliefs and is by no means heavy going.
  
  You will see in that what the Conservative Party is really about. You will find that the reason it is the longest lived and most successful political party in the world is because it is a pragmatic one, not a dogmatic one. It has a habit of 're-inventing' itself and updating its view of the world and policies to remain relevant to the circumstances of the day.
  
  In more recent history, the move towards Thatcherism in the late 70's was an example, then the change more recently brought about by Cameron is another example. I myself am an avowed 'traditional' Tory and big Thatcher fan, but am fully supportive of 'project Cameron' and have been from the start.
  
  To call the Conservatives 'dogmatic' is not born out by fact or the history of the Party.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ;
  i DON'T FINK you have always been a devoted cameron fan, or have you been telling porkies in earlier posts?
• Guest 645 wrote:
  News Reports today state that Lieberman is waiting in the wings should Palin be given the boot.The report also referred to the inquiry by the cross party senate commission and less important the fact that her 17yr old unmarried daughter is pregnant.It's a hard world in american politics.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  We will see Marek.
  
  Keith. I dont know what you 'fink' but I think you are a bit confused. I have been a Cameron supporter since I was at the Party Conference when he made that first great speach that thrust him into the pole position in the leadership election.
  
  I remember coming back from Blackpool and PaulB posting something along the lines of suspecting that I would be supporting a 'boring' old duffer. he was, I think, a bit surprised when I said that I supported Cameron and I was vociferous on the forum in doing so.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, I think all speculation of Leiberman being in the wings has been put to flight after last nights speach.
  
  Sarah Palin confronted her critics and wowed, not just the Republicans, but also the media with a stunning performance that included well aimed attacks on Obama combined with humour while demonstrating an ability to deal with the intense pressure that has been placed on her.
  
  Several British ccommentators have said 'a star is born' including Adam Bolton on Sky News.
  
  It will be interesting to see how she responds in interviews rather than in just a set speach. With the coolness she has demonstrated under pressure she could well win this for McCain and herself be the first woman POTUS.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  I watched the speech live last night or should I say early morning and yes she came across extremely well.I didn't think for a minute that she would let her side down but to be honest both you and I could go and make a speech full of rhetoric and bring the house down.What is now important is substance,policies and how the Republicans are going to deal with Iraq Afghanistan,Middle East,Russia,Global warming,the Economy etc.Also Palin will have to be able to think on her feet when crossed examined by a plethora of foreign correspondents one thing that Tony Blair(for all his faults) excelled at.It was descibed last night as one of the most exciting Presidential elections in modern times.I agree its going to be fascinating to see how this unravels and what the final outcome will be.Maybe Obama should have tried to steal McCains thunder by appointing Clinton as his running mate... now that would have made it a scrap worth watching.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have to say, Marek, that while I usually take an interest in the US elections I did not do so this year until the Palin announcement.
  
  I detest the dreadful Hilary and certainly preferred Obama over her so was pleased he got it.
  
  My attitude before was that while normally being a sympathiser of the Republicans, Bush has been bad for the USA and it might need an Obama.
  
  I do find McCain far more to my taste than the Democrat contender, however.
  
  Now Palin is on the scene it has suddenly become much more interesting.
  
  I would differ with her over creationism (though the media do misrepresent her, to be fair) and I would not go as far as her in opposing all abortion.
  
  I think, however, that she might be just the breath of fresh air America needs. She will need to be a quick learner firstly in the bear pit of American campaigning and then, if successful, as veep.
  
  Yes, this has suddenly become interesting and I find myself spending far too much time watching it now than I should! I may even watch the VP debate to see how she does.
• vIC mATCHAM, RIVER wrote:
  I say again are we in the U.S.A.or the U.K. all you talk about is the U.S.A.
  
  Vic M
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Vic - it is the topical political subject at the moment.
  
  We are still in our 'silly season' pre-conference.
  
  We could discuss the Labour Party backstabbing and Britains economic difficulties but it is nice to have a change from that. We will be back onto UK politics no doubt once the Conference season starts.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  interesting to read marek's post on great speeches.
  
  the best oratory i have heard in the last 15 years has come from messrs kinnock and hague.
  
  the voters lapped it up and then told them where to go.
  
  the UK electorate are very pragmatic, and are only interested in what will affect their pockets, when it comes to election time.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Clarke is though dismayed at being ousted himself, and feel hes not makig thses speeches in the interest of the labour party/country,
  he doesnt have much support in the ranks either
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Vic its inevitable that people talk about the US Election..its been the lead story on our dearly beloved BBC for the past several weeks...and thats before the Election proper kicks off. John McCain, oven ready war hero (oh Ive done that joke already!) accepted his nomination for the Republican Party ( conservatives) last night so the race is on.
  
  You may have seen my little editorial at the top of the page with reference to Charles Clarke and his 'silly season' attacks on Gordon Brown. This guy trundled his stuff around all the TV networks yesterday pouring out his rather obvious nonsense. I suspect he got this level of air time because there is nothing much else happening for the moment. But the coverage is way out of proportion to its content.
• keith sansum, Dover wrote:
  Bu locally its all happening in St Rads already i'm hearing he Lib Dems have put out a leaflet around the ward, gearing up for the bye election?
  
• Guest 645 wrote:
  I read that the election will take place sometime in October..once the can throw all Vics different coloured hats out of the ring.
• keith sansum, Dover wrote:
  So at the moment it appears there will be a labour candidate a tory cndidate a lib dem candidate, vic matcham(no idea who hes with now)
  any other party know if there standing?
  #will David Hannent give in to the tory wishes?
  
  interesting times ahead
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The whole point of Clarke is not necessarily that he is himself plotting but he is speaking openly what many other Labour figures are saying privately.
  
  The big question now is will Brown last until Christmas? Its turning into a real soap opera.
  
  Then there is the economy, the OECD says that the UK is the only G7 nation likely to go into recession next year while they have upgraded estimates for the USA. Darling foolishly talked the economy down in a way that placed interest rate cuts in danger. We have seen Brown fumbling around for something to do and totally failing to come up with a credable package.
  
  Interesting times.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef/ Vic and all in between, there has been little or no interest in this St Radigunds by-election shown by either the local newspapers or anyone else as far as I can see. Maybe some excitement will muster forth as the polling day looms...but in the meantime you may find Sarah Palin or Barack Obama will linger longer in the media spotlight...for the moment. Although once the St Rads thing gets off the ground all other news stories will surely be eclipsed.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes BarryW i saw that item too about the UK being the only top country likely to go into full recession and this is a worry as it shoots the oft told slogan
  "we are best placed to deal with the downturn etc etc"
  right out of the water.
  
  My feeling is that Brown will last til Christmas and indeed beyond because there is nobody on the horizon just yet, maybe Milliband in a year or two, who is able to take his place. Or indeed nobody on the horizon who would WANT to take his place( one thinks..poison chalice!) He was such a racing certainty for so long to take over from Tony Blair that it has wrongfooted the party.
  
  I see in the papers now too even Gwyn has stated that Gordon should have called an Election while he had the chance...however Gordon did start very well and even the Tories were surprised at his beginning. Gwyn could be right...it all went immediately viciously wrong from the moment he walked away from the General Election opportunity.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  This is an interesting article PaulB. p://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/09/the-day-gordon.html
  
  (I deleted htt from the front to upload just copy/paste and add back...)
  
  It postulates that there will either be a November coup and June General Election or a coup in June after the local/european elections.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes thanks BarryW have read that now and although much talk of plotting and so on I note the comparison to what I said earlier in the editorial at top of page( or it may have been a posting)..ie that its unlikely that the likes of Milliband would want to see his " shiney new premiership" ruined by a massive early defeat...so a short term coup is unlikely as at the moment it is the ultimate in poison chalices. Although after those combined Local and Euro elections next year on June 4 anything could be possible, especially if results are bad.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Paul
  I think you are right.Look what happened to Hague.There is no doubt he is bright, intelligent and was excellent at the despatch box.But he blossomed to soon and paid the penalty for being unable to lift the tories out of the sinking sand.Milliband won't want that to happen to him.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  O.K. The wait is over, no party has aske me to stand for them, so I will be standing= Vic Matcham,
  every thing,
  YOU SEE IS,
  Black and White,
  A true Independent.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i thought you had joined the blue party victor?
  
  good to see you have stayed out of mainstream party politics.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  For Vic Matcham following his announcement..
  
  Vic here is your first media interview...only one question...but in two parts.
  
  1. As I mentioned in the editorial piece above.What can you bring to the people of St Rads that they cant get under a Labour administration?
  
  2.They have been a Labour enclave for years why would they change now?
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Vic
  If I were a St Radigans resident why should I vote for you as an outsider?
  
  Do you remember the kerfuffle over the Tories choice of Charlie(a decent chap but in somes eyes not a local) over Ms Rook(who was considered a local).
  
  It will be interesting to read what your policies are and how you as an Independent came bring change to one of Dovers less wealthier areas.
  
  Lead on MacDuff.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Tony Blair is the only alternative leader who would dramatically improve Labour's electoral prospects if Gordon Brown was removed as Prime Minister, according to a new poll.
  None of the Cabinet ministers currently being touted as possible successors to Mr Brown would improve the party's standing, while some would even do worse, suggested the ComRes survey for the Independent.
  According to the poll, Mr Blair would almost halve the Conservatives' poll lead from 19 to 10 points if he returned to 10 Downing Street, reducing the Tories' projected majority after the next election from 182 seats to just 20.
  The poll put Conservatives on 44% - down two points on a similar poll last month - Labour on 25% (up one) and Liberal Democrats on 17% (down one).
  
  With Mr Blair as leader, Labour's rating would leap six points to 31%, found the survey.
  But under Foreign Secretary David Miliband or Justice Secretary Jack Straw, the party would remain on 25%, while if Health Secretary Alan Johnson or deputy leader Harriet Harman became leader Labour would slump two points to 23%. Under Schools Secretary Ed Balls, the party's rating would be just 22%.
  
  
  
• Guest 649 wrote:
  O.k. Paul
  Your two part question is a good one and not that easy to answer,because we are talking about the Town Council not the D.D.C.and has you know the The Town council only have very limitations on how they can help or do in anyward.
  I will say that having been on the town council before that Labour do have some very good Cllrs and they work not only for their wards but also for the town and we must also remember it was the labour party that got the Town Council up and runing again some years ago.
  All I can say at this time to part one of your question is that when I Cllr at the Priory ward Iwas always up there working for the ward with I might say the other Labour cllrs at that time the other town cllrs of the ward we never saw them once in four years, and when the bg flood came I did my best with Labours cllrs to help. i am talking now about Town cllrs only.
  And I would do the same for ST. RADIGUNDS WARD I have always said at town and district vote for the person not the party,I was born in Dover and I am full of passion of all the town not just some of it so it is ST RADIGUNDS THIS TIME , PRIORY LAST TIME, ALL WARDS ARE THE SAME TO ME THEY ARE IN DOVOR and I love the place .
  I do not know if I will be any better than any other cllr all I SAY i WILL DO MY BEST.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Part two Paul.
  True labour have been at St Radigunds for years and you aske why would I CHANGE.
  Well I will put that back to you.
  Can Vic Matcham bring some thing to this ward we have not got,can he do things which at this time are not done or being done,can he help the residents young and old more, will he help in the ward, will he put or help put on events to help the ward? If you look into my record over the years it might tell you if it is Yes to all this then vote for me, if not then vote for others. It is the person doing the work not the party.
  
  I hope this will help you to vote in the way you think is best for the ward.
  
  Vic matcham
• Vic matcham, River wrote:
  Marek.
  First MAREK I do not feel an outsider I was born here and have had homes in more then one ward in the Town. I hope you read what I put in my post to what paul asked me if I can add more to tha for you pleas let me know.
  
  Vic matchm
• VIC Matcham, River wrote:
  I will say this.
  That as the time goes on if at any time I feel that I do not stand any kind of chanceof geting in then I might drop out for some years now I have used my own funding and now I am working part=time only I must be carefull.
  
  But we will see how things go for the next few weeks or so.
  
  Vic Matcham
• keith, Dover wrote:
  VIC
  I know iv given you this advice before, and i also know you will ignore it, but i'm thinking of you and your lovely wife.
  Whilst you were a town cllr in priory, you were quickly rejected many times, you have to ask yourself why?
  
  I have no doubt you will be rejected also in St RADS and i just hope you reconsider.
  
  You have bundles of energy and \you need to channel them into more positive things where you can make a differencre, and of course your home life.
  
  O f course as i'v said before its your call and im certain you will ignore what is only advice, but I feel you have more to offer, and these elections are wasted energy for you.
  
  But im sure i will see your name on the candidates list, and apart from my wanting labour to taKE back the seat it held for some time i do wish you well vic.
  
  but please do consider my advice, if nothing else for the sake of your lovely wife.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Keef yes sound advice in a way but I think Vic just enjoys the fray, he likes being part of it all. Not a chap to sit home to potter about the garden nor nibble custard creme tarts on the decking with the lady wife.
  
  Thanks for answering the questions Vic but you yourself probably asked more questions than you answered! Its clear you will work hard for the residents but work hard at what in particular was what I was trying to get at. But I hope it goes well for you Vic and that you have a good run. No doubt the pace will hot up soon when the other candidates are announced. You certainly bring a bit of colour to these events.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Marek a very interesting post there about Tony Blair. I can well believe that his return could save Labour. We are in a dreadful post Blair slump and all now realise there is more to being Prime Minister than just being a grave looking guy in a suit....particularly in the 21st century.
  
  The old days are gone, the days of serious looking politicians in pinstripes. We now need a person to engage with us on a wide scale. This is something Gordon Brown is unable to do.
  
  Tony Blair on the other hand was able to do it in spades. From a Labour perspective he was an unbelieveable success, winning three elections in a row. And make no mistake its the personality of the leader that wins things nowadays. We now no longer vote for a donkey in a red hat, or indeed a donkey in a blue hat just because they are wearing those hats. Why!? because there are no real right and left anymore, all is central. Politics has blended into one great mighty mass and so the personalities count for more. We need a beacon, a shining light to guide us through.
  
  It's unlikely Tony Blair would come back.He is now rich comfortable and doing a job he likes. Look around though today at the Labour hippos squirming in the current mud and none of them emerge with any chance of capturing the nations hearts or imagination.
  
  Its true Tony Blairs popularity waned somewhat towards the end, indeed that happens to them all. But when the replacement doesnt measure up we look back and see things in a different light. Tony Blair could still beat Cameron.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Tony Blair's day is over PaulB. This whole Government is discredited and falling apart. You merely demonstrate just how bad thing have got for them by harping back to Blair as a saviour.
  
  The fight has moved on and the Blair/Brown Labour mode of top down 'Government knows best' has had its day.
  
  We are moving towards a new era of much smaller Government where there is less interference in our lives.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  
  you are so right about the days of right and left.
  
  labour has allied itself with big business at the expense of itls supporter base.
  
  today, i received a missive from what used to be the true blue party, expounding how the rich are getting richer, whilst the hard working poor
  are footing the bill for it.
  
  i was half expecting it to end with, "come the glorious day, citizen".
  
  no wonder fewer people vote each time, they have no natural party anymore.
• TVic matchamype your name here...Vic , River wrote:
  Thank you for your comments, I will not be posting much over the next ten days I am in london in the morning then later on in the week I am off to the Midlands.
  
  Vic M
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Indeed the old understanding of left and right no longer have meaning and politics is far more complicated than that.
  
  The division in politics is much more subtle than, say, 30 years ago.
  
  Both main political parties comprise of a 'broad church' from left to right. There is a fair amount of cross-over between the right of Labour and left of the Conservatives and indeed there always has been. This makes for a lot of debate within the Parties and the left of one usually gets balanced by its right. The so called 'centre ground' is very much a movable feast.
  
  I think that this is healthy because you get the debate on policy programmes between elections with an agreed programme going into an election so the public know what type of Government they will get. The alternative you see elsewhere would be a lot of diverse parties, where the policy debate is after an election trying to form co-alitions, so when they vote the public dont exactly know what kind of policies will be enacted.
  
  The differences between the Parties can still be characterised as left and right, however but the definitions of left and right need to be made clear.
  
  Labour have indeed dropped the old left wing clause 4 politics and that is healthy but they remain at their core socialists who still believe in the State as the solution of all problems. They are simply going about things in a different and cleverer way than in the 70's. Instead of wanting to nationalise whole swathes of industry they instead require industry to do its bidding through rules and regulation. They remain true to their high tax and high spending attitudes, after all if you think Government has all the answers and should involve itself in everything, then it costs money...
  
  The Conservatives remain true to the idea that individuals are what is important. Society is made up of many individuals and by encouraging their talent and hard work the whole of society can benefit. The principal that Government does not have all the answers and indeed that Government if too interfering can be the problem itself. At the root of this is the idea that property (share and home ownership) should be open to all. Also implicit in this is the idea that decisions shoudl be made as close to those affected as possible, indeed by those affected wherever possible. One response to the last 11 years of centralising overbearing Government is a big surge in the 'Localism' agenda within the Conservatives.
  
  That really is the core of the left/right divisions. Within the Parties there are different shades of the above with Frank Field perhaps having more in common with Ken Clarke than with, for instance Tony Benn.
  
  You still therefore can crudely define left and right as:
  Left: belief in the power of Government
  Right: belief in the power of individuals
  
  I hope that this adds to the interesting point made by PaulB on the left/right issue.
• keith sansum, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  You make it all sound so easy, but its not so simple,
  just recall the conservatives when last in office didn't believe in local govt and actually starved it(maggie at times admitted this)
  
  I'v never moved from being a leftie, my party has, but that doesnt make me suddenl change, I do have long memories of the days I narly lost my house when the tories were last in control and mortgage rates went through the roof(please excuse the pun)
  
  I believe in a fairer society, but not like our BAZ spouts (sorry, debates) off
  
  I believe everyone that is able to work should do so(not quite a lefty view but i do have strong beliefs)
  Im sure there are many abusing the many systems, whilst many of us get up early n the morning to earn a crust.
  
  I believe we should build council houses but only for those who realy need them(this is a debate in itself)
  
  Just a few fings that come to mind
  
  Yes conservatives and labour agree on many things, but having had the experience of high mortgage rates under the conservatives i'm not willing to risk it again
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Keith your comments about mortgage rates are a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the position that led to them in 1989/early 90's. The policies responsible were those being urged on Mrs T by Labour, TUC/ Libs and pro-Europe Conservatives, n(along with much of the Press urging Mtrs T and Sir Alan waters to support her 'brilliant' Chancellor) it is a matter of historical fact that all these groups supported entry into the EMU that led to the mortgage rate disaster of that time. What saved us was when we crashed out of it and we have learned that lesson and no Conservative will take us into the Euro.
  
  As for the rest. I was merely offering an explanation of the basis of left/right labelling that still has relevance.
  
  Yes it is more complex, for instance you have the libertarian right and the social conservatives. But overall my analysis below is a pretty fair examination of the key ideolical differences between Party thinking.
  
  Policies come and go to meet the circcumstances of the day, what is more important is the background and thinking from which new policies emerge. That is what I explained.
• Guest 675 wrote:
  And there was me thinking that Mrs T wouldn't even listen to her own cabinet.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Chris, you have obviously been listening to those who knock her rather than those who worked with her and knew her.
  
  She was actually a great listener. I was at many Conferences back then and unlike most leaders she spent a lot of time there listening intently to debates, often urging on and encouraging nervous floor speakers.
  
  There is no doubt in my mind that the decision to join the exchange rate mechanism (and previously, Lawson's shadowing the DMark) was the worse decision of the Conservative years. It pales besides the poll tax in its overall negative impact, though it is the poll tax that everyone talks about as being Mrs T's downfall. I just find it unjust that she takes all the can for a decision that just about everyone else in the establishment was urging on her, forcing her to cave in against her best instincts. Now she is blamed for the resulting economic impact back then.
• bern, dover wrote:
  She was listening on the principle of Know Your Enemy rather than with any intent of responding..........
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Barack Sticks Foot in own Gob!
  
  Yes what a howler
  "Put Lipstick on a Pig and its still a Pig!"..says Barack Obama, this was in direct reference to the opposition, to Sarah Palin's reputation as the Lipsticked Rottweiler...so the american election is hotting up for sure. Will it be a nasty campaign, well it may well be if this is anything to go by.
  
  Democrat Team
  Barack Obama
  Joe Bydon ( who? where's Hillary)
  -
  Republican Team
  John McCain
  Sarah Palin
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I had to laugh at that PaulB, specially after the news that women are flocking to the republican cause, that will certainly harden and perhaps accellerate that momentum.
  
  There was another boost to McCain from an unlikely source yesterday, Gordon Brown.
  
  Gordon endorsed Obama in an article, supporting a specific policy idea he had. This was of course a big blunder as foreign leaders should stay well away from partisanship in another countries election. Usually such an endorsement results in adverse electoral reaction. Of course Brown has shifted the blame to a member of staff, which itself says a lot about Brown and the way he has lost his grip. The McCain camp reaction was interesting, they mocked Brown with a comment on the 'Coveted brown endorsement'. Again it tells us a lot about how Brown is viewed overseas. The crunch, of course, is that the policy idea of Obama's Brown was supporting has been dropped by Obama!!!!
  
  Brown cannot get anything right.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  I note that Harriet Harperson has re-opened the class war with a speech to the TUC in which she states "equality matters more than ever" and "is necessary for individuals, a peaceful society and a strong economy".
  
  I presume that her own offspring, who she made sure benefited from a grammar school education,are at least able to spell 'hypocracy'.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bob I wouldnt regard Harriet Harman as any kind of leftie, she was a Blairite so its about as centrally based as you can get, almost a Conservative say some, and so there is no reason why her kids shouldnt go to private school.
  
  The reason she is calling for equality, and the reason the class war seems to be re-opening as you saw from the TUC guys this week, is because there are huge differences emerging again between the rich and the poor.
  
  MPs from all parties, very significant that they are from all parties, are calling for a windfall tax, a tax they are now NOT going to get. People are appalled at the huge profits the Utility Conglomerates make while many of their hard pressed customers cant affort the bills these companies charge, and have to go without heat etc etc.
  
  The best that the government can come up with is
  "Lag yer Loft". Pretty poor response from a Labour government.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - The ultra-pc feminist Harriet 'Harperson' is about as far from being a Conservative as you can get.
  
  The rubbish she espouses is guaranteed to really get right 'up the nose' of any Tory.
  
  She is a hypocritical champagne socialist of the worse type.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. This argument about 'equality' is a false one.
  
  Class and wealth divisions do not matter if we have social mobility and people, through talent and sheer hard work, can improve their circumstances, gaining wealth and status.
  
  The Labour Party have a vested electoral interest in keeping the poor poor and on benefits. In that way they will have their 'client vote'. We can see how over the last 11 years how social mobility has reduced as a direct impact of Labour policies and attitudes. The Labour idea of 'equality' is to level down to the lowest common denominator. Policies that demonstrate this include the tax credit system bringing people earning over £50k a year into the benefit system, their opposition to Grammar schools, the levelling down of educational standards through 'grade inflation', the discouragment to save and invest through reducing the tax benefits and reducing tax free saving levels.
  
  Conversely the Conservatives have a vested electoral interest in people being able to improve their circumstances, to get off benefits, to earn and keep their money and be independent. Such people, after all, are more likely to vote Conservative. Examples of this in action were polices that encourage home and share ownership including the introduction of tax free savings, supporting our Grammar Schools and streaming.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  Well it looks like the Winter of Discontent is kicking off quite nicely with Barristers going on strike after their 'derisory offer' of £91/hr. (See BBC News)
  
  That should bring the economy to a grinding halt!
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Geting back to our own town, I will be going up to the D.D.C. on Monday when I get back from the midlands to pick up my election papers for the next by-election in Oct 2008 for the Town Council.
  I am going to do a new post also when I get back and it will be called.Who runs the D.D.C.?
  
  This will be about you and me vote in Cllrs to work for us and the Distict but do they. Or is it the Officers who run the council we know it should be Cllrs telling Officers what needs to be done, not officers telling the Cllrs and let me tell you now in planning the officers are acting and doing things that the Cllrs do not even know about and this is not right, some developments are Not going ahead just because some officers do not like it, they are paid to do what the Cllrs aske them to do, and should not beable to stop any development from going ahead with out it going before the council, but it is going on up at the district And developers are turnig their back on our town we are heading for hard times but funds and developers are still there but one big developer over the last few days as told me that time is running and he and others to will turn their backs on Dovor for the last time if they do nt get more help from the planning office of the D.D.C.
  Comments please and hopefully we will get some from Mr walkins who I DO HAVE ALOT OF TIME FOR ,he is the man for the job he is doing but it is what behind him what needs to be look at.
  
  I remain yours faithfully Vic matcham
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it is a worry bob, i will not sleep tonight knowing that barristers are suffering on a miserly 91 quid an hour, i hope they get time and a half if they stay late.
  
  on the subject of harriet harman.
  
  the very worst kind of politician.
  we all know about the quality of schools in her constituency, hers get privately educated, away from the ruffians.
  
  she recently announced that black and women candidates should take priority in new employment.
  totally illegal, condescending rubbish.
  
  does she realise how she has insulted black and women candidates?
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  I've just been reading the Evening Standard which I found on a train amongst a pile of other newspapers which I have taken home to use as insulation in my loft.
  
  I was hoping to take advantage of the excellent subsidy which our Great Leader has announced for home insulation but have been put of by the fact that the National Insulation Association say it will take ten years work to insulate all the lofts in this country.
  
  Thank goodness no-one will be building any new homes in the forseeable future otherwise it would take even longer.....
  
  Anyway, the Standard says 'Thanks to the Press Association, we learned today that ahead of his Downing Street presser, the PM headed off to see Tom and Sue Sheehan in Balham, south London.
  
  The Sheehans* showed him how they cut electricity and gas use in their home, slicing up to £400 off their £1,000-a-year energy bill.
  
  Sue, 44, explained that much of the saving was down to simple lifestyle changes and practices that would have been the norm a generation or two ago - including a newly-cultivated habit of switching off lights and closing windows.
  
  "We cut our heating costs a lot simply by making sure every window has curtains and they are closed at dusk," said the mum-of-two. "A lot of people have blinds in their kitchens nowadays, but switching to curtains has kept a lot of heat in."
  
  "We've put a curtain over the front door and gone round blocking every little gap - like where pipes come into the house - and it has made it a lot more cosy and comfortable and we've been able to turn the thermostat down to 18 degrees. The next thing will be to put special balloons in the chimneys to stop heat escaping that way."'
  
  Does anyone know where I can get 'special balloons' in Dover? I've asked in Deal but no-one seems to stock them. I've got a Hippo water saver in the cistern from when we had a water shortage and could, at a push use that, but am worried that it might melt if I put it up the chimney.
  
  Are they OK with an open fire or do I heat up the room, put out the fire and then stuff the balloon up the chimney?
  
  Grateful for any help, in the meantime I must get back to knitting a balaclava......
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  there is a war on, so i suppose we must all sacrifices.
  
  whatever you do, don't tell them your name bob.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Thanks Howard. I'm aware there is a war on. In fact there are a number of wars.
  
  There's the one in Iraq to secure our oil supplies which has pushed petrol prices through the roof.
  
  There's also one going on in Afghanistan which has lead to record opium harvests and cheap heroin flooding a street near you, and me and everyone else.
  
  On a positive note, perhaps all those who were suckered into paying for courses to produce Home Inspection Packs, could be redeployed by the STASI to check our loft insulation and whether we have a balloon up our chimney?
• bern, dover wrote:
  A balloon up your chimney is worth two in the passage........don't knock it til you've tried it.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bob can you knit me a ballaclava while youre at it - Im gonna need it.
  
  The measures announced by the government yesterday are okay as far as they go, but they only cover help for the unemployed and for pensioners. What about the rest of us though. Many working are hard pressed to make ends meet. What about the millions of us flat dwellers too, who wont be lagging our loft anytime soon, due to the inconvenient aspect of not having a loft to lag.
  
  As many from all walks of life think, including the unions...the energy companies have got off lightly in this furore. I notice the Conservatives have been a bit quiet on all this...are they sitting on the fence?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Trouble at t'mill (or perhaps I should say conference....)
  
  Sky News are reporting today that some Labour backbenchers have asked for leadership nomination papers.
  
  ""Sky sources say the group of MPs are attempting to trigger a leadership contest against Gordon Brown.
  
  This latest development is likely to renew speculation over Mr Brown's ability to lead his party.
  
  To prompt a Labour leadership contest a prospective candidate would currently need 71 nominations at the party conference.
  
  Sky News Political correspondent Joey Jones said: "This is miles away from being the sort of backbench movement that could force Gordon Brown out at this stage.
  
  "But it does suggest that some malcontents on the Labour backbenchers are unwilling to sit on their hands and let Gordon Brown get on with it."""""
  
  The pro-Labour BBC, however thinks that Gordon is safe, at least for now, while the Spectator, as a result, suggest that it indicates that Labour have given up on winning the next election and are resigned to defeat.
  
  My only beef about all this is simply to ask 'what about the country?' Is it really right for us to remain lumbered with a lame duck Government at a time when we are facing recession?
  
  As someone non-political said to me this morning, (who voted Labour last time, incidentally), we need an election and a change of Government. All this naval gazing by Labour is doing no good at all and Brown's attempts to limit the electoral damage, with bribes and spin, are deeply damaging. I see this morning that his 'package' to help with fuel bills is unravelling fast with an announcement that this money would be spent over 10 years... No good to people right now, of course, not something Brown let on about but then he prpobably did not understand exactly what he was doing because all he was looking for was a fig leaf...
  
  What a state of affairs... Interesting Conferences coming up though.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - ref your comment about the Conservatives.
  
  I suspect that at the moment they are just letting labour do their job for them, staying quiet so as not to take the spotlight off Brown's difficulties. It makes sense seeing that they cannot at this time achieve anything practical and would not want to give Brown any more ideas to help save his bacon at his Conference.
  
  I expect the Conservative position to be revealed at the Conservative Conference, after Labour's, when the spotlight will be firmly on what we would do. It makes sound stategic sense.
  
  I was saying to Alison how much I wish we was there this year but, alas, we will be in Marbela for a few days in October and cannot take the extra time off...
  
  Still, we will make sure we are there next year.....
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah yes BarryW it should be an interesting party conference season..probably the best for a number of years. Yes I heard something about the plot against Brown but I still think its only a few disgruntled murmurings among the backbenches, but a lot will depend on what sort of conference he has, and will Cameron be able to sustain his momentum too for the Conservatives. One thing about the recent disgruntlements, at least all eyes are on Labour wondering whats going to happen next. The Conservatives have slipped under the radar for the moment, but as you say, maybe thats the plan.
  
  Holidaying in Marbela.wow! shouldnt be allowed so it shouldnt! lol
• bern, dover wrote:
  So, finally, it seems that Dead Man Walking may have to heed the Party. It really boils down to charisma, though, doesn't it? His policies are probably no better or worse than another fellas policies - different, is all - but it is his leadership that has failed. He fails to communicate, engage, or cascade information on a meaningful level. Managers beware - a lesson to be learned!!!!!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Indeed Bern charisma plays a huge part nowadays as all communication with the masses is done through the medium of television. If you havent got charisma in this arena then its like the lead ball of doom coming at you, the voter, from the box in the corner. Sadly poor Gordon has that air of doom about him. Lead and Ballooon spring to mind!
  
  However he has been very unlucky. As you say his policies are not any different as such, but the global financial crises has hit him where it hurts. He took the helm at an abysmal time...and none of it his fault.
  
  Look at the economic news this morning coming from America where all the porblems have arisen. Lehman Bros, huge bank of great reputation gone bankrupt, Merrill Lynch, huge bank of great repuation almost gone bankrupt but now propped up by Bank of America, AiG worlds top Insurance company also in major trouble....unheard of financial chaos, all this crosses the Atlantic and washes up on our shore here. So.. for sure...its the wrong time to be Prime Minister! And make no mistake it would hit any party in much the same way.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - we make our own luck. remember Brown was responsible for the economy for over 10 years as Chancellor and was given unprecedented authority by Blair over domestic policy in that time.
  
  The world economic crisis is indeed not of his making but he is responsible for how badly prepared the UK is.
  
  Remember his boast that he had ended 'boom and bust' it was a totally daft claim that no-one with any knowledge of economics could take seriously. It was he that, as soon as the restraints imposed by the promise to keep to Ken Clarke's spending plans were lifted, went on to borrow more and more money when common sense would dictate he sould have re-paid debt.
  
  Another plainly wrong and patently untrue statement (or Brownie) he still repeats is the one that we are better psotioned to weather the downturn than other countries. The EU says we are one of just 3 EU countries that are heading into recession. The OECD says that we will be the only member of the G7 to go into recession. These forecasts are often wrong (indeed the two quoted do have a contradiction) but the one thing in common is their forecast of the UK and they expose, independantly, Brown's lie.
  
  I have been saying for years on this forum (and its predesessor) that Brown was incompetent as Chancellor and warned that we were heading for problems. Those of us with financial knowledge could see exactly the mess Brown created.
  
  We see him now totally unable to respond properly to the world economic situation and indeed to domestic crises. He has a mental block about taking the action that he should be taking, reducing public expenditure, and instead casts around for pallatives that will just end up making a bad situation worse. We will have to pay for his incompetence for many years ahead.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Most of the world's present financial problems have arisen through piss poor bankers motivated by greed and corruption.I do not have a grasp of the finer points of the banking and financial institutions but why are the govt being blamed because bankers failed to operate correctly lending out more money than they had in the first place to high risk borrowers and if anybody dare mention ''oil prices'' I'll scream.
  The directors for years have been taking home millionaires of dollars in salaries bonuses golden bloody handshakes whilst the poor man in the street is struggling to meet his increased mortgage repayment.
  Instead of passing the buck or using the easy target of Brown why dont all these alleged know alls pull and work together to get this country out of this crisis rather than taking petty political potshots at each other,Lets form a cross party financial team using the undoubted brains and talents we have festering in the Universities and amongst the sarcastic financial economic journalists who believe they and they alone have the solution.Lets put them all in a great big room and let them come up with a viable unified proposition and plan.
  At present as soon as one party announces some new measures to tackle the problem another party poo-poo's the idea and presents their own remedy.They can't all be right but how are we as the ''common man in the street'' supposed to know who is telling the truth or who is spinning and baking porky pies.All we get a childish snipes at Brown and how he's cocked up the world's finances and is the sole reason for the rising price of an egg custard at Caseys Bakery.
  We are swamped by statistics and everyones different intrepretation of them.Figures are flung at us that without a caculator we can't wrap our head around.
  Now is the time for joint action not petty party politics.Work together to solve a common problem
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Well I have been up today to the D.D.C. got all my election papers for the by-election of a town councillor for the St Radigund,s Parish Ward.If you did not know the day of the poll is 30th October times are from 7.00am till 10.00pm.
  So there you have it.
  
  Vic Matcham
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Hi Marek.
  
  Easy target Brown? Let's look at what he was saying a while ago:-
  
  LONDON, April 5, 2004 – The Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, today officially opened Lehman Brothers’ new European headquarters building at 25 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London.
  
  Commenting on the event, the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: "I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain. During its one hundred and fifty year history, Lehman Brothers has always been an innovator, financing new ideas and inventions before many others even began to realise their potential. And it is part of the greatness not just of Lehman Brothers but of the City of London, that as the world economy has opened up, you have succeeded not by sheltering your share of a small protected national market but always by striving for a greater and greater share of the growing global market."
  
  This is what happens when you have the Economy run by historians (Brown) and failed solicitors (Darling)..........
• bern, dover wrote:
  It's the USA market that has fallen first and hardest, and the comments you quote are the same as comments from leaders and bankers the world over. Global greed and poor planning have brought this on, not the failings of one man.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Hi Bob
  Totally agree ..why should the countries finances be managed an elected MP who hasn't a bloody clue or has no proven experience in the financial arena.Why not invite a number of full time professionals on board to help and advise regardless of their political persuasion but based upon their merits and expertise.The countrys finances should not be used to fund political ideaologies but maintain the financial stability of the UK.
  
  ps Bob there is no need to call me (Darling) but it was flattering in any event.
  
  On a personal note you are not Bob Frost late of Dvr(E) I.S. who was married to that lovely girl Penny by any chance?.
• bob frost, Deal wrote:
  Hi Marek,
  
  Remember "politics is merely the entertainment branch of industry'' FRANK ZAPPA.
  
  The answer to the latter is yes. Send e-mail.
  
  Bob
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  marek
  
  
  are we to understand that you and bob are in the same lodge?
  
  most of the old trouser rollers do not post anymore.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Howard
  The only lodge that Bob and I frequented were local hosteleries that served alcoholic refreshments.
  Our trouser legs remained firmly down and the funny handshakes only occured at closing time where one soul would try and keep the other soul upright.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Marek your Beefstock Exchange post there is a very strong one and very accurate. There is a tendency to blame Gordon Brown for absolutely everything, and where he might be guilty of some misdemeanours he isnt guilty of causing the financial crises. Although I do take into account what BarryW said below, that we werent as prepared as we thought we were.
  
  Also you are accurate too re the reference to the greed and the sometimes dodgy and risky dealings that go on. Much time was given to this aspect yesterday on the radio 4 Today programme, and its not denied. But these large merchant banks sanction it all and in some cases people cream off millions that should in reality go back into the system. So when there is a downturn everyone takes a big hit and the millions paid out in extravagant times arent there in the kitty to bail the system out. Risky high rolling could be a thing of the past. If thats the case I think some good might come out of it all.
  
  The unfortunate thing though is that 5,000 people are employed by Lehman Bros in London, and they will lose their jobs.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. You do understate the problems caused the the UK by Brown's Chancellorship in this, admitedly, global crisis.
  
  The situation we have right now though demands leadership but we are not getting it. Brown is a man who believes firmly in Government action being the answer to all our problems and we have never had a PM so committed to State intervention. So it is not strange that he is so silent right now when we really need some leadership?
  
  The truth is that we are seeing his personality defects writ large. His inability to accept advice, his failure to listen and above all his stubborness, is leaving him like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
  
  This man should be leading from the front in this crisis but he is silent. The reason is clear, his room for manouvre is limited by his past mis-management and the right action for him to take now is action that he simply will not take... It goes completely against the grain for him.
  
  Instead of firm action we get pallatives. Instead of measures to instill confidence and liquidity to the markets he plays around at the fringes.
  
  He should do two things right now, at the very least just to show leadership: announce a freeze on public expenditure and a freeze on public sector recruitment. The State sector should be seen to be taking some of the pain that the rest of the economy is feeling. Oh, there is more he should do, he should actually be cutting public expenditure and diverting resources and taking action to boost liquidity in the mortgage market.
  
  I see how those posters from the left are blaming what they dub 'greedy bankers'. I am not going to suggest that greed plays no part at all but this really is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the system and is an easy cop-out for those of who who would prefer to divert blame and responsibility.
  
  I have already covered previously how Brown's mismanagement of fiscal policy has created problems but there are other aspects.
  
  The financial system is highly complex and the root of our present problems are in excessively low interests rates and easy credit for far too long. This is not a problem limited to the USA but also in Europe as well and the UK in particular. That is the fault of central bankers, they control interest rate policy. A tighter hand on this would have reduced the impact of these problems. low interest rates, cheap credit, has led to a level of complacency over the repayment of debt that was unprecedented. Claims by those that sghould have known better such as 'the end of boom and bust' further encouraged irresponsibility. There is also an element of regulatory failure in the USA but also in the UK, the reforms Brown made regarding the FSA and Bank of England have a share of the responsibility.
  
  Add that to the way Brown has discouraged saving by cutting allowances and tax breaks resulting in a fall by two thirds in the 'savings ratio'. This has left the public more dependant on debt and now, with the present crisis they have no savings to see them through. This has compounded the problems and further stifled the economy in a turndown.
  
  Brown carries a great deal of the responsibility for the misery so many people are suffering right now, with more to follow....
• Guest 640 wrote:
  An excellent posting there BarryW..a treatise, if thats the right word, on the current economic gloom, as seen by the Conservatives of course. Much of it many would agree with Im sure.
  
  The fine art of nationalisation is alive and well. Now AIG, the hugely ailing huge company, has been bailed out by the US Government...and as they said on R4 this morning it is in effect " nationalisation". Who'd have though this tool for the common good would have re-emerged in the US of all places.Only last week it was those two national broker houses who met the same fate. At the end of the day, the extravagant high flyers, currently covered in something that isnt quite glory, have succumbed to public ownership. You cannot trust the vital throbbing organs of any national asset to the few so called 'high-flyers'...who are of course failing to fly quite so high at the moment.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Tony Benn,a politician I much admire,said on Breakfast TV that the city high rollers and gamblers who have enjoyed much wealth are now going to the govt cap in hand asking to be bailed out..by the tax payer ...nationalised in every aspect but name.
  
  He also denounced Browns critics by saying that not one of his critics had come up with any credible alternative policy and that is unlike the Tories who applaud their leader one day but are all too quick to stab them in the back the following day.Thatcher,Major,Hague,IDS,Howard to name but a few.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Tony Benn speaks from the far left of course. He is a great vocaliser but has been wrong on just about every major issue he has taken up from State ownership to nuclear disarming. I respect the way he sticks to his guns and intellectual honesty if not for his views.
  
  There are alternatives and alternatives have been available right from the Northern Rock fiasco. Indeed before that, Brown had many alternatives and choices to have guided the British economy from the start 11 years ago thatwould have left us better able to cope with the present downturn.
  
  I am not just speaking with the power of hindsight, I have been warning about where he has been going wrong all along on this forum.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  So........if we are paying for something, what is the difference between that and being nationalised, apart from our lack of control over outcomes?
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I suppose the next one will be the CEO of HBOS trotting along to the mighty Bank of England with his little cloth cap in hand saying "please sir can I have some more".
  It's afunny old world you gamble your money on dodgy American mortgages and thenwhen it all goes t... upwards you ask the good old British taxpayer to bail you out.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  'It's afunny old world you gamble your money on dodgy American mortgages and thenwhen it all goes t... upwards you ask the good old British taxpayer to bail you out.'
  
  It's much worse than that. It's people gambling other peoples money!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave - as you may know I am watching these events in a professional capacity as well as anything else.
  
  Lloyds bank are in advanced talks about taking over HBOS and in doing so will would form a massive organisation.
  
  The problem here is one of sentiment rather than any fundamental problem with HBOS. If the public were to panic and withdraw their cash then it could cause a what might otherwise not be necessary. Indeed up to a point that was the case even with Northern Rock.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Just seen this on the Spectator website,
  
  quote::
  
  """"UK Polling Report's Anthony Wells is reporting a rumour that the Tories could have broken the 50 percent mark in tomorrow's MORI poll. The (very much unconfirmed) figures have the Tories at 52 percent, Labour at 24 percent and the Lib Dems at 12 percent. That would give the Tories a hefty lead of 28 percent - which is significantly up on the 20-ish point leads they've enjoyed recently, and can only pile more pressure on Brown.""""
  
  This is interesting because we still have a very difficult Labour Conference to come, that could be quite bloody and then the Conservative Conference which will be another matter all together. No doubt DC will be looking to get a 'conference bounce' and will be putting forward some very tasty titbits for the electorate.
  
  I wonder to what heights a Conference bounce could push us?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  There has been a confirmation on Political betting that the figures below are real.
  
  This is quite significant, but as I say the interesting polls will be those after the Conference season and after considering a range of polling. You can still get the odd 'rogue' despite improvements in methodology.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  opinion polls, conference bounce etc etc.
  
  do the public care?
  
  no, they have much more important things to worry about, their job and their mortgage, for starters.
  
  the present government are intent on saving their ministerial and mp's salaries, all their efforts are aimed at winning an election that is already lost.
  i listened to nick clegg's speech today, full of anti labour rhetoric, nothing about how to deal with the economic slow down.
  
  if the blue lot actually discuss how to deal with these immediate problems, at their conference, i will eat my masonic headwear.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry on one hand you are saying that their is too much state interference and then more or less say that the government was right in nationalising Northern Rock.
  Companies like HBOS gambled our money on dodgy deals, their bosses haven't even got the decency to say sorry we got it wrong but then why should they, they're still muli-millionaires.
  Putting it simply if I was to come along to you and say I want to borrow £200,000 for a mortgage but have 3 ccj's and can only self certify my income would you lend me the money?
  I know you will bring complications into it but this is what these disreputable bankers did.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  According to Guido Fawkes site (and why incidentally can't we put links here to save copying and pasting???):-
  
  MORI tomorrow will have a poll putting the Tories on 52%, Labour on 24% and the Lib Dems on 12%. Total political meltdown.
  
  According to Electoral Calculus, this would give the Tories 493 seats, Labour 121 and leave the Lib Dems on 8 seats.
  
  To add to the entertainment of watching a Banana Republic in its death throes, a Newcastle University report says that crippling power cuts could bring anarchy and chaos within five years because of Labour's failure to tackle the looming energy crisis.
  
  Professor Ian Fells, of Newcastle University, said blackouts would bring public transport to a halt, close down schools, shops and offices, reduce hospital services and devastate the economy.
  
  He claimed the crisis will be triggered by the planned closure of six coal-fired power stations and all but one nuclear power plant over the next decade.
  
  In a hard-hitting report, Professor Fells also accused the Government of 'wishful thinking' in assuming plans to build more wind farms will plug the looming gap in the energy supply.
  
  And he warned dealing with the crisis must take priority over all other policies - including tackling climate change.
  
  'Electricity is the life blood of civilisation,' he said.
  
  'Without it we spiral down into anarchy and chaos.'
  
  According to the report, which was commissioned by steel industrialist Andrew Cook, around 23GW - or 30 per cent of the UK's generating capacity - will need to be replaced by 2020.
  
  Although ministers plan to build 7,000 wind turbines off the coast within 12 years, it claims engineers would need to install ten every possible working day to meet the 'unattainable' target.
  
  The report also called for the life of nuclear power and coal-fired stations to be extended and new plants to be built.
  
  Personally I have very little faith in my fellow man and I have always said that we are only 24hrs away from anarchy (make that 6hours for Aycliffe!)
  
  Give it 24hrs with no ATM, petrol stations unable to serve petrol (electric pumps), tills in Tesco all down and spotty youth unable to count without a bar-code and I'll be glad I renewed the shot-gun licence.
  
  Currently (no pun intended) the Govt's energy policy is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
  
  There's no way that we could get nuclear on stream to help even if we started building today and scrapped the interminable Public Enquiries.
  
  (FWIW Germany went from <1% renewable to >15% renewable in 8 years. Still a tad light of the 30% shortfall but it would be a step in the right direction.)
  
  One would have hoped that any government would have made sure that its first priority is to satisfy Maslow's pyramid of need for its population of food, water, warmth and shelter.
  
  At present we are incapable of feeding ourselves as a nation, are advised to put a balloon up the chimney to keep warm and have a mega housing shortage.
  
  My only query is how they are going to screw up the water supply....
  
  On the good news front Sainsburys are cutting the price of 'essentials' and the Olympics are going ahead with the arrival in Dover of the Olympic Torch accompanied by a spectacular firework display (in Scout Hut if wet).
  
  It looks like it's not only the Roman Empire that ends trying to keep the lumpen proletariat subdued with bread and circuses.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dave, though i agree with a lot of what you say, i think that lehman's were the culprits in lending money to doubtful people.
  
  hbos are suffering the backlash unfairly.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - you are totally correct, HBOS is essentially sound and are under threat by speculative short trading and sentiment that could cause a run on the bank that would create what would otherwise not otherwise happen.
  
  Lehmans were not the only ones guilty of some bad lending in the USA but they were a big player.
  
  Dave. The Northern Rock situation was interesting and the nationalisation was simply at the end the least bad option, but it should never have been allowed to come to that. There were options (Virgin and an earlier one with Lloyds) that would have been much less costly to the taxpayer. Bad judgement and mishandling by the Government left nationalisiation as the only option. (Some prejudice of Brown against Branson seems to have played a part in it...)
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave. You ask about lending.
  
  I am not heavily into mortgage broking, it is a service I offer but it is not core business. I at least have direct knowledge of what you are talking about.
  
  I have frequently advised people against borrowing for a wide variety of reasons. I am only happy to recommend and arrange a loan after satisfying myself as to its suitability.
  
  There has been a lot of bad lending in the UK but it has not been as serious as in the USA. Even some of the mortgage products (ie 125% loans) that have been attacked as being wrong, do have a place even if suitability is quite rare. Sub-prime lending requires care but for many people it has worked out well.
  
  Most lending has been responsible.
  
  That said I have seen some terrible examples of bad practise and those responsible should be hung, drawn and quartered as far as I am concerned.
  
  The problem we have is largely a result of the sale of packages of debt where the true nature has been hidden from view. These form a part of complex financial instruments that do have a role and can work well. Work well, that is, if the credit rating they are given really reflects the underlying credit risk. It is the uncertainty around that which was the catalyst to the present problems allied to the general downturn.
  
  Clearly lessons need to be learned here and I am pretty sure that once the markets have settled down and froth disappated the system will emerge stronger. Not sure when that will be though!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bob
  
  call me over intuitive, but you seem less than enamoured by our present leadership.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  just spotted your comments about Mr clegg.
  
  did you see his press interview yesterday?
  he was rattling on about pensioners, when a journalist asked him what the basic state pension was, his reply was "er erm about 30 quid".
  
  the assembled throng assumed that he had misheard, the question was repeated.
  
  the answer the same.
  
  is there a politician around that is in tune with the people that they purport to represent?
  even the lowliest MP with salary and expenses, lives in a different world to the people that they represent.
  
  each election the turnout gets lower.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah yes Howard I heard the news about him not knowing what the state pension was in a phone in TV interview. Bit of a clanger, especially bad for those on pensions to think politicians dont really know exactly how poor they are and how they are struggling. Now as I write its thursday and that clanger was two days ago 'but the boy dun good' yesterday and made a very impressive speech. Above all it was delivered brilliantly like an actor performing Shakespeare.
  
  The picture from the top of the page was taken during that speech of course.
  
  I wasnt sure of his credentials to be a party leader but had my mind changed yesterday by his performance. He looks young, very young, but the LibDem party reeled from the criticism of former party leader Menzies Campbell when the world universally condemned him for being too old( despite these politically correct times!) and opted for the complete antidote to ageism...youth!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  surely more than a bit of a clanger!!
  
  does he know what the minimum wage is?
  who was helped by the 10p tax band?
  
  i have to disagree with your assessment of his performance, prancing up and down, trying to look like a gospel preacher.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah yes I agree his lack of knowledge was ermm unfortunate. It makes you wonder how much these politicians actually know about real life. The Westmintser Village syndrome kicks into their psyche very soon after election and it all drifts into one great game of chance.
  
  However in terms of Clegg I would say very little lasting damage was done by his lack of grasp of the fundamentals.
  
  As to the speech delivery, well what can I say, this is the new way, ultra casual, at one with the people scenario. Of course not everyone likes this type of innovation. David Cameron did this quite successfully last year too, which led one wag to quip yesterday..
  'Clegg was like a David Cameron tribute act!'
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Clegg wasn't quite managing a Cameron. He had 3 teleprompts spread around in the audience enabling him to give the impression he had memorised his speech. It was quite cleverly arranged but you can just see at least one of them in the coverage from some camera angles.
  
  Cameron, of course, had no prompt and had no more than a few note headers that he rarely looked at. It will be interesting to see if he is able to maintain the standard of delivery and content he set last year.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Just to go back to that Poll for a minute. Yes I have to agree this is a catastrophic(for Labour) swing around in the Tories favour.
  C 52%
  L 24%
  Lib 12%
  Although we know Gordon Brown isnt very popular, someone said this week he is the least popular PM since Neville Chamberlain in the days of Hitler, but surely even he alone cant be responsible for such a massive swing. He was a fairly popular chancellor after all, so much so that he walked into No 10 unapposed.
  
  I guess these things are cyclical and maybe its just that its the Tories turn and no matter what Gordon does now it just wont wash. As a government goes its accomplished a lot with more schools, police, than ever before. They have spent big on services.What we all want surely.
  
  So what exactly is it that has caused such a turn round in the polls. It cant be the global crises can it??
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - his 'popularity' as Chancellor was based on smoke and mirrors and generated by spin. It was not based on any kind of substance. He was beavering away behind the scenes undermining the economy through excessive spending, borrowing and instilling red tape on businesses. I have posted reguarly on his many errors over the years.
  
  Now as PM the mist has cleared, he no longer have a showman to hide behind and his economics policies are now seen to be what they were, exposed by the downturn. But there is more, he simply cannot hack it as PM, he lacks the required skills, people have stopped taking him seriously and has made misjudgement after misjudgement (as he did as Chancellor except now people can see them for what they are).
  
  His interview was interesting last night. It was excrutiatingly embarrassing, his whole presentational style and the content.
  
  Here is an extract from the Spectator Coffeehouse blog pulling his interview apart demonstrating how he misrepresents the truth and is frankly deluded to such an unprecedented extent, even for a politician, that a new word has entered the English language, a 'brownie'... (the comments after the quotes are the Spectators, not mine....
  
  ===========
  “In 1997 we came in and… the debt of the United Kingdom was 44% 45% of national income, we cut that and it is now about, I think the figure yesterday was 37% so that is a major cut in debt.”
  This is – how you say? – untrue. HM Treasury says net debt was 41.3% in 1997-98 Yesterday the ONS said net debt was 43.3% (report here, ONS here) and no you can’t wish away Northern Rock. What strikes me is the straight poker face with which Brown delivers his made-up figures.
  (These figures dont include off balance sheet PFI debt, BW)
  
  “The last time we had a world down turn, interest rates were 15%, in fact they went up to 18%. Interest rates are 5%.... So compare the 1990’s with now – 15% interest rates, 5% interest rates, that’s the difference.”
  Our little magician is using two Brownies here: one is the “nominal terms” one where he ignores inflation. Real terms interest rates are comparable now and then – I’ll get the figures later. The second Brownie is the ‘false proxy’ where he uses Bank of England rate as “interest rates”. For most people, “interest rates” are what the can actually borrow at – way over the BoE base rate.
  
  “What I criticise people for [is] irresponsible taking of risks in situations where they thought that nothing could go wrong" –
  like a Chancellor who ramped up debt because he thought he’d abolished boom and bust?
  
  CoffeeHousers may ask ‘why didn’t the interviewers pick him up on the Brownies’ – but to paraphrase LBJ, arguing with Brown about statistics is a lot like pissing down your own leg - it seems hot to you, but to no one else. Sky will have taken enough of a hit on viewers screening one hour of Brown interview at 8pm on a Friday night. Start bickering about stats and you’d decimate what audience remained. Jeff Randal picked him up on several (GB: ‘there are more people in work than 1997’ ‘JR: ‘That’s because there are more people’) but it was rightly cut from the edited version (full transcript here).
  
  His modus operandi continues to be presenting fake figures to a public who stopped listening months ago. But consider this: if the City firms who he’s now lambasting were to use such fake figures in a document regulated by the London Stock Exchange, it would be a criminal offence. Brown’s game – debt concealment, tweaking definitions, rule bending – shows that the practises we’ve seen in Wall St and the City are being perpetuated in government. And there will be a price to pay.
  ---------------------
  
  There is a lot more on the Coffeehouse blog, one well worth anyone interested in politics to look at....
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  INTERESTING TIMES AHEAD
  Gordon now looking over his shoulder(hopefuly) he needs to get his arse in gear.
  TORIES people still don't trust them
  Lib Dems everyone knows there so unlikely to ever get power they can say wot they want .
  
  no wonder politics is dieing and people choose not to vote
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  If you go to politicshome.com you will see the biggest ever poll of marginal seats. 35,000 interviewed in all.
  
  They confidently predict a Conservative win in Dover with Labour being wiped out in the South East (apart from some inner London seats)
  
  Conservative majority of 143 predicted.
  
  That said - all polls in the Conference season are a bit suspect. The first really meaningful polls we will see will be after the Conferences.
  
  Keith. You need to catch up a bit with what is happening. you have been saying what you have for a long time now, things have moved on.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Labour Party Conference got off to a good start today, I didnt see all that much of it but saw the summary later. Big speeches were made by Chancellor Darling, awful dull with a promise of gloom, and young firebrand Milleband who is jockeying for the leader position should big Gordie stumble and fall. Milleband doesnt set the world alight though..he is a trifle dull and earnest with it, not a sparkling mix...but maybe in time....
  
  This is the problem for Labour, there isnt really anyone in situ with the charisma to push Gordon out of the way and win public appeal on a wide scale. How hard can it be...we had it from Tony Blair for so long, but I guess we got spoiled and thought all Labour leaders henceforth were destined to have charisma.
  
  The most interesting speech came from Tony Woodley, trade union leader, a real throwback to the seventies its true, but it was a delight to hear someone call for nationalisation of all the essential utilities.
  
  "If the Americans can do it with their Banks, then we can do it with our utilities" stormed Tony.
• Bob Frost, DEAl wrote:
  Good news at last .......gold over 900$ an ounce.
  
  What a shame Gordon sold off our reserves in 17 auctions which achieved prices for of between $256 and $296 an ounce, with an average of $275.
  
  Doh!
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  
  i have not seen or heard anything from the conference, but if mr woodley said that, he has made a very valid point.
  
  the american governments over the decades have always preached the free market, but they are one of the most protectionist economies that could be found.
  
  add to that the socialist measures(bailing out companies with taxpayers money) that they use when it suits them, and we are left with a country that will do just about anything that benefits them, to the detriment of the rest.
  
  in the words of dr henry kissinger, "america does not have friends, only interests".
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  That old loony lefty Neil Kinnock was interviewed today and said that calls for nationalisation were unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Blimey you lot are more left wing and appearing more out of touch with the real world than even Kinnock....
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  
  maybe "your lot" would now describe president bush as "loony left"?
  
  i love all these 1970's cliches.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bush is just a fool.
  
  It the label is right then it is as right now as it was in the 70's and 80's....
  
  The clown show in Manchester (and the TUC fantasy display) demonstrated that the loony left have just been keeping a low profile and are still with us.
• bern, dover wrote:
  It is rather sad when expressing solidarity with fellow humans or a desire for equality of opportunity attracts a label like Loony Left. Insulting to socialists and people with mental health issues - nice one.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  We actually all need a resurgance of the left wing for the greater good. Right now all three political parties are rowing up the middle of the stream fighting over the centre ground and all getting their paddles entwined. The only thing that differentiates one from another is the personalities on offer.
  
  Many people bemoan that. Personalities over policies. I myself actually liked the emergence of the personality, as in the TV age its the main way to get your message out. Somebody likeable to the masses will be listened to more.Its a simple plan and it works.
  
  But behind the PR gurus pulling the party strings, it would be nice to have some proper or different paths/policies to choose from. At the LibDem Conference we saw them morph into the Conservatives and we have long since seen the Labour and Conservatives morph into a great grey solid lump of sameness. We should have choice.
  
  I like Tony Woodley. Now there's a refreshing guy...a guy who rubbishes this 'lag your loft' stuff and calls for windfall taxes and help for the poor.
  
  By the way the Delegation of Union guys from the Port, as seen on frontpage, met with Tony Woodley re the job loss situation. Good to have him on side.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  We can all make use silly derogatory term to describe each others political beliefs, I think it’s amusing that the right just loves the term ‘Looney Left’ an alliteration of two words, yes that’s right folks two whole words starting with the same letter…absolutely amazing!
  
  I will say I agree Nationalisation is unrealistic and the damage it would cause catastrophic. Shareholders would be forced to sell their assets, never mind that the shareholders of these companies (pre privatisation) never got a penny.
  
  Left wing ideals are unrealistic but at least utopian in conception. The inconsistencies in right-wing thinking are just laughable at times. Society is broken/society does not exist; we can handle change/we are traditionalists; if you work hard you will achieve/we love hereditary privilege; we will represent you as a political party/we believe in enlightened self interest. The last one there amuses me the most, why vote for someone that holds their own needs above yours, I don’t want somebody like that representing me.
  
  This ‘sod you jack, I’m alright’ (as my Dad calls it) attitude is exactly what we are seeing with America and at a local level actually has a massive impact. Driving through Pfizer last week, major downsizing is already taking place and I think we can accept they are moving out. They don’t care, and why should they, they are a company making profits money and being offered tax reliefs to pull operations back to the states. I have no problem with this other than the immediate effect locally. We do live in a world centered on money and business is business, however to try and apply this model to everything is just stupid and undermines our civilized nature.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Shorthand terminology is useful in getting a point across, however prescious and high minded some may react to it.
  
  PaulB.
  
  There are some very big and clear differences between the Conservatives and Labour. It does not take a revertion to some outdated and discredited ideology to create a difference. If the main Parties are each contending for the 'middle ground' then that is to the good because that is where the votes are.
  
  As for the differences between the Parties, I have explained these before.
  
  Labour have clearly demonstrated that they believe that Government has the answers to all our problems. That therefore rationalises a belief in high tax and spend policies and 'nanny knows best' attitudes. The last 11 years have demonstrated that in action.
  
  Conservatives take the opposite approach and believe in the individual and that people should be free to live their own lives. That leads to a belief in small Government and low taxation. Mrs T's policies of right to buy, privatisation and the encouragment of individual savings and investment demonstrate that in action.
  
  Clearly there are 'shades' within each Party but with these positions as starting points very different solutions and programmes can be derived.
  
  Another way to look at this, the Conservative viewpoint chimes with personal responsibility, being rewarded for achievment and punished for doing wrong.
  
  The Labour starting point can result in an attitude that a criminal, for instance, is a 'victim' of society. Or that a successful businessman is being greedy.
  
  This is simplifying things but we can from this recognise stereotypes and can perhaps see reflected many of our own attitudes.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. I have just seen this on Conservativehome to substantiate my point about the Conservative attitudes towards policy. There is a big push on 'localism'. Dan Hannen is one of our local MEP's.
  
  ..... Direct Democracy will tomorrow launch its third major publication, written by Douglas Carswell MP and Daniel Hannan MEP. The Plan: 12 months to renew Britain, sets out a legislative programme that the authors believe would take a single session of Parliament, accounting for recesses, but change Britain for ever.
  
  The original Direct Democracy publication, subtitled Agenda for a New Model Party, argues for the Conservatives running and government unambiguously as the anti-Establishment, anti-centralist party, devolving power either back to the individual or to the lowest possible level of government. The book identified voters' dissatisfaction with politicians and reluctance to vote as a rational response to the way in which Britain is governed, with the decisions most clearly affecting people's lives more often taken by quangos and bodies of supposed expert opinion than by elected politicians. Released following the 2005 General Election, three out of four leadership contenders - David Cameron, David Davis and Liam Fox - endorsed the pamphlet. The proposal of elected sheriffs is now Conservative Party policy. This was followed by the Localist Papers, serialised in the Daily Telegraph.
  
  Openly radical, The Plan applies these general principles to produce a policy and legislative programme. The book includes proposals for the use of referendums to allow citizens to initiate and to halt legislation, and a Great Repeal Bill, abolishing thirty laws, many selected from ConservativeHome readers' comments to Douglas Carswell's CentreRight thread 'What laws would you repeal?'. The book has chapters devoted to pitfalls and voters' dissatisfaction in areas from health care to foreign policy................
  
  I will certainly be getting a copy. Some real radical thinking going on from the right to free us all from the dead hand of the State.
  
  
• DT, Dover wrote:
  As I say this is not consistent. By committing a criminal act you are in fact being more of an individual than someone that abides by the shared morality of society (the law).
  
  If we are all trully individual then surely nothing is wrong (or right for that fact) to be punished for?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  DT as I said there are 'shades' in both philosphies. On the Labour side the ultimate would be the Communist command economy and society.
  
  On the other hand take belief in the indivual to the ultimate conclusion and you get anarchy. Conservatives believe in a framework of law which is rejected by anarchists.
  
  Conservatives accept the need for Government and belief in the Nation State along with emphasis on law and order/defence. We just want small Government, not no Government.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  I haven't watched a lot of TV lately but I've not heard head nor tail of DC and any proposals of how his party would cope with the current financial crisis.Or have I just been in outer space recently?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek. We are in the Conference season and there is a convention for leaders to stay quiet during the Conferences of their opposition Parties.
  
  Bear in mind that DC is leader of the opposition and will not be listened to by Brown (he wont even listen to his advisers after all) . There is nothing DC can do that will improve the situation.
  
  All he can do is set out the Conservative alternative and that is what will be done in the Conference.
• marek, Dover wrote:
  Barry do you know any of the history behind the date order of the conferences?.I always felt that the govt of the day should have their conference last therefore allowing them the benefit of listening to both opposition parties objections and view points.It appears to me that the Tories can sit back watch and learn from the other 2 main parties and ridicule them without any fear of a feedback... as so often happened in the past with the Tories under Thatcher.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  No Marek, I dont know that.
  
  You make a point certainly, about the order, but someone has to come last and someone first!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  having read our blue candidates views on the situation with the harbour board and it's victims, it appears that his version of conservatism has something of a human face.
  
  i wonder if that is what he really thinks, or does he share barry's views that market forces should take precedence over everything.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yup, I am more to the right of Charlie on this issue, I freely admit it.
  
  He makes his case well but I personally prefer to let the managers manage and make these key decisions. I believe that would be in the best long term interests of Harbour and longer term employment in Dover.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  
  Yes Charlie is the softer face of Conservatism.
  
  BarryW you have to remember Managers have managed us into the current worldwide economic cases. The management at these financial institutions were obviously completley bad and not to be depended on, taking wild risks at every level. Greed and even fraud mentioned now at every turn. Moderate risk taking is fine in a way but no net escape in times of downturn is just a shocking disregard. You will have seen all this in the reports from America yesterday...now every single US citizen has to pay $2000 dollars per man/woman to bail the eejits out! Bailing them out on such a billions scale is being resisted in Congress.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. You are repeating tabloid headline versions of events that do not bear up to reality.
  
  Yes there have been regulatory failings in the banking sector that have left the economies of the USA and UK exposed. One problem in the UK was the strange tri-partied arrangements put in place by Brown between the Bank of England, the FSA and Treasury. This obscured lines of responsibility and enabled the regulatory eye to be taken off the ball. The USA too made some serious regulatory errors and it is these, combined with the rise in commodity prices, that sparked a downturn into a crisis.
  
  You seem to be ignoring as well the errors of politicians and central banks in keeping interest rates too low for too long. Brown's stupid claim of an end to boom and bust said it all really. He, the man who massivly increased PFI funding accusing businesses of off balance sheet activity, what a nerve!
  
  I dont think the Euro has helped this situation at all. I have not seen any economist theorise on this, it is my own thoughts only. But during previous cycles we have had a number of major currencies floating against each other, the DM, FFr, £, $, Lire and so on. Today these have been reduced in number with the consolidation of several currencies into the Euro. I think this could have had an impact that was unforseen in reducing currency 'competition' in a way that helped keep interest rates too low for too long. If in a few years when learned analysis points to this you will know where you heard it first....
  
  Then of course Brown destroyed UK savings as Chancellor with his ill considered 'reforms' leaving too many people now without a cushion against any cyclical downturn, let alone the more significant problems we have now. In addition the public, lacking savings and spurred on by easy credit, have borrowed far too much. The whole economy has been kept afloat on a sea of debt for years.
  
  Again I am not speaking in retrospect. I have warned about the debt bubble on the forum before and a couple of years ago I did a long post about our economic health being an illusory bubble, Fantasy Island is what I referred to the UK as. You may recall it, I was quoting a economic publication. You poo pood it at the time.
  
  Then of course as Chancellor Brown's Government has borrowed far too much while the economy was growing, during which he should have repaid debt, just as any family should. This means he has either now to massively cut public spending or borrow huge amounts more leaving a bigger inflation problem to raise it ugly head in a couple of years time. He has said he will borrow more and not only that has made irresponsible additional spending commitments!
  
  All the burden of this recession is being thrust upon the private wealth creating sector with the public services not sharing any of the burden. Do you realise the implications of that?
  
  This will lengthen and deepen the problems. At the end of the day it is the wealth creators who will have to get us out of this and the more difficult you make it for them.....Its common sense really but Brown is too blind to see it.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  according to reports from the states, the oven chip man wants to stave
  off a debate with barak, in order to go to congress to block this funding.
  
  he has a very good point.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard I think you will find that Bush is having Obama and McCain over to the White House to help support the bail-out, not block it.
  
  Uncomfortable as it is and potentially expensive, it is necessary to stave of the immediate problems. It is the lesser of the evils.
• keith sansum, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  The TUC and unions ave not been quiet as you have indicated, many are out there campaigning and supporting there members every day of the week.
  I know you have thi view of unions (loonies) but there are some realy good union reps/leaders out there and you should no class them all the same.
  Also they have a role to play(if allowed to do so) without so many restrictions to stop them operating.
  So theres one big diference between the tories and Labour
  The tories don't want unions to get in the way(stick up for its membership) so beware of that, remember how our lovely maggie tried to destroy them all., beware of returning to those dreary days.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I certainly do distrust and dislike the out-dated unions Keith who I consider to have often been their members worse enemy.
  
  But that is going back a long way to find any mention by myself of Unions. Nothing to say about the economic situation then?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Moving on - I know there is a great deal of Brown knocking and perhaps it is not a pretty sight.
  
  But the point is that the character of this Prime Minister is a key issue that is affecting the whole conduct of Government.
  
  A few things we know about him already:
  He does not accept advice
  He is stubborn and has a temper
  He is reputed to be a control freak and obsessed by detail
  We are fully aware that one theme has run through this Government, one of lack of trust, that Government knows best and has a right to interfere.
  
  I found the following on Iain Dale's blog. It gives an additional insight into why Brown is such as issue himself, his personality and the personality of his Government. I also believe it demonstrates exactly how a Government should not be run.....
  
  Judge for yourself:
  
  """"""""""""""""""Quote: Iain Dale, blog...
  
  When Tony Blair went, we all thought we were getting a return to Cabinet government. And so it seemed, for a bit. But then stories began to emerge about Gordon Brown wanting to micro-manage every department, rather than look at the big picture. Today CommentIsFree carries an article by Martin Kettle (no friend of the Conservatives) which contains a fascinating anecdote................
  
  A few weeks ago, one official confided an extraordinary story to me. Four years ago, ministers decided that Britain's South Atlantic island possession of St Helena needed to have an airport. If planes could land on the tiny island, more than 1,200 miles from the nearest continent, its economic and demographic decline could perhaps be turned around. Plans began to be made. The airport was scheduled to open in 2010.
  
  Earlier this year, the Foreign Office finally asked the Department for International Development to sign off on the airport. The file went up to the secretary of state, Douglas Alexander. But instead of giving the go-ahead himself, Alexander was required to pass the decision up to Downing Street. Brown insisted on reading all the papers in the St Helena file and afterwards asked personally to see all the tender documents, in case they did not give value for money. I am told the papers remain in Downing Street and that no final decision has yet been taken.
  
  It would be hard to find a better example of a decision that a prime minister in times of trouble should not waste his time on and one that should be delegated to ministers. What would Napoleon have said? But the St Helena episode has become a Whitehall byword for a lethal combination of micromanagement and indecision.
  
  ................If ever anything summed up the hopelessness of Brown's style of government, this does. And the thing is, he will never change. His government is being paralysed by Brown's insistence that the whole shabang has to be run from Number 10. Perhaps if he trusted his Ministers a little, they might - from time to time - rise to the occasion. Sadly, we are unlikely to find out.
  """"""""""""" End Quote
  
  Link to source: http ://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/09/browns-control-freakery-is-paralysing.html
  
  Imagine the many decisions that have to be made by a Government every day. This is no way to run even a small Council let alone a Government. The sooner the man and his whole wretched crew go the better.
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry you must remember when the Conservatives were saying exactly the same about Margaret Thatcher.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I dont quite know what you are saying there Dave.
  
  Mrs T and the Conservative style of managing is far more delegatory. She was certainly a powerful figure but no-one accused her of forgetting the bigger picture by getting bogged down in excessive detail. In some respects if she had kept a tighter control over a certain Minister (Nick Ridley!!!) the poll tax might not have turned into a disaster. Personally I prefer a Government to err on the side proper delegation rather than too much central diktat, because better results can mostly be achieved (Nick Ridley being an exception to the rule).
  
  She had a formidable mind and great grasp of issues, working long hours and did not need a lot of sleep. Not the same at all....
• Guest 667 wrote:
  No Mrs T never forgot the bigger picture she just did not care about the bigger picture. As long as we kept selling everything off and making the rich richer all was well. There certainly was no care for those loosing their jobs and homes because of the sell offs of major companies and those struggling to pay the dreaded poll tax.
  
  Where as with this financial global problem Gordon Brown is at least showing he cares about those that may loose their jobs and homes and is trying to find solutions.
  
  That is the difference showing respect and that you care for the lower paid and wanting to find solutions rather that cabinet ministers saying “Get on your Bike”
  
  No she never ever forgot the bigger picture “MONEY” for the well off. I hated her policies, her arrogance and the ground she walked on, which is why although I find a lot wrong with this government, I could never trust the Conservatives again.
  
  Oh yes and we are still paying for it today with those firms she sold off, they are not in competition as the Conservatives said they would be. If one puts the price up, the other follows, is not competition suppose to work the other way round?.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Harry - I really dont recognise the person you portray and I met her many times during her heyday.
  
  You would prefer a Governing Party that knows nothing about spending restraint and drives the economy into the ground.
  
  In New York Gordon Brown, for once, spoke the truth and was candid.
  
  He described his years as Chancellor as 'An Age of Irresponsibility'. Yes, he was the most irresponsible Chancellor since the dark days on the late 1970's when we last has a crisis of this magnitude. It was Mrs T who had to take some tough decisions to get us out of that and you can trace the cause of the unemployement levels of the 1980's direct to the idiotic economic policies of Labour.
  
  We are all better off now because we had in Mrs T a Prime Minister who had the courage to do what was necessary.
  
  The Brown legacy now threatens all this.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the saying "a week is a long time in politics" came back to me today.
  
  we have had two weeks of seeing to listening to the PM and the chap in waiting.
  
  an opinion poll states that people would trust our gordon more than boy dave to get us out of the present problems.
  
  the other questions posed by the same poll stick with the young pretender.
  
  interesting that people think about certain issues so deeply that they differentiate between certain fairly similar questions.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Barry we all have our opinions and I fully respect the fact you admired Mrs T, I regrettably never had the misfortune to meet the lady so that I could tell her what I felt about her.
  
  You appear to try and claim credit for the Conservatives for being better off, well the feel good factor came after Tony Blair and Labour came to power and for me, they deserve the credit for that.
  
  It is funny when in Power it was not the Conservatives fault, people lost their jobs and homes and then there were financial global problems, none of that was their fault either. Well can I ask what happened to all the money from the big sell offs.
  Now in opposition and Labour faced with similar global problems it is in part their fault, after all they did not save for a rainy day.
  
  When election time comes along, I am sure a lot of people will start to ask them selves just as I do, “Can we trust the Conservatives again” they will remember the don’t care attitude that was there under Mrs T and Co.
  
  As I have said I am not happy with a lot this Government has done and I do not go a lot on Mr Brown, but when it comes down to it, it will be which is the best of the two evils.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - polls are meaningless during the Conference season. I predict that in a week time the Brown bounce will have ended. Over the last two weeks it was the Government and LibDems who were having their say, it is us this week....
  
  Harry. Look back at history. Every Labour Government has ended with economic crisis due to their reckless excessive spending, taxing and borrowing, without exception. They are incapable of running a whelk stall.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well No I think the polls are very valuable during conference season as they show if someone has gone down well or not. Clearly the Gordon Brown speech was exceptional and went down very well indeed, and NOT just in the hall..I didnt know he had it in him. It was a PR coup in itself, apart from the politics of it, thanks to wife Sarah, her input was the talk of the TV shows at the weekend and was obviously a huge story with the national newspapers. Thats how elections are won and lost. Its akin to the 'kissing babies' syndrome..these gestures reach beyond the basic politic and into the hearts and minds. If you can pull it off right.
  
  It will be interesting to see what David Cameron can do in response. I hear he intends to speak behind a lectern this time and not do a roving walkabout speech as he did last year and as was done recently by Nick Clegg of the LibDems. Perhaps the novely of walkabout has subsided.
• Guest 649 wrote:
  Would you please read my letter on the D.T.C.which is in the Letter Club, my next one will be about the roll of th D.D.C.as I see it you might not agree with my letters please feel free to tell me so.
  
  Vic matcham
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - Brown did better than his usual low standard, true, though he did spoil it with a particularly high level of out and out lies and one particularly brazen misquoting of George Osbourne. Even Sky's Boulton had a go at him on the latter and tried but failed to get Brown to apologise. That has to be a classic piece of tv for the future.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB, further to the ssue of conference polls. Prof Anthony Wells published and interesting pieces I found on politicshome.com. This is an extract:
  
  """"The comments I’ve received on the post-conference Labour polls contain a lot of encouraged Labour supporters thinking that the mood may have changed, sometimes seemingly quite bewildered about why people are quite so dismissive of the polls showing a smaller Labour lead. I’ve been phoned up by some journalists this morning asking what weight we should give polls showing Labour catching up with the Tories. The answer is - for now - not much at all.
  
  It is, of course, possible that Labour caught the public mood at their conference and things have indeed changed, but looking at polling around Labour conferences in the past, it seems more likely that it is a publicity boost. In the past when party conferences do have any meaningful effect, it is extremely short lived.""""
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Thanks for that BarryW...interesting.
  
  Watched shadow chancellor George ..gosh nearly said George Orwell, Osborne today at the Conservative Conference...and while he is not an exciting speaker and is unlikely to fire up the polls either way...he did however promise a freeze on Council Tax for 2 years should they be elected. This is a measure which should go down well with the hard pressed..ie most of us right now.
  
  Following on from an earlier promise to virtually eliminate Inheritance Tax again for most of us..so he has tackled two of the top most unpopular taxes of all in good vein.
  
  This is bound to go down well with the voter and may wrongfoot the Labour revival, if indeed there is a revival.
  
  How though would Dover District Council feel about having their council tax frozen for two years??
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The 'costs' of the freeze would be shared between the Council and Government and is voluntary, councils would have to opt in.
  
  I think most councils will do so.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Tell me do the Conservatives now have a computerised clap-ometer or do they still have some one pop up with boards with "clap" , “stand & clap”, “sit” written on it.
  After all they always go for the longest standing ovation at the end of their conferences
  
  
  Ok Barry; just a silly wind up joke.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  All the Parties are the same.
  
  Having been in an audience like that though and speaking for myself, the applause is spontanious. Today at lunchtime I sat in the lounge and listened to George Osborne, sat there alone, I actually clapped when he turned the novice dig back on Brown!!! I am not normally one to do that in front of the tv.......
• Guest 667 wrote:
  I am sure they are all the same Barry; it was just a tongue in cheek leg pull.
  
  I never get much time to listen or see the conferences these days, but I know the Conservatives always used to pride them selves on a long final standing applause.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  interesting, this council tax freeze idea, the shadow chancellor made a blanket statement about 2 years for everybody.
  barry adds that councils have to opt in.
  
  i have read other things about councils cutting spending to get the kick back from central government.
  
  in the press every day, we read that all councils are taking on more work without the funding needed.
  
  take our local council, they have closed the tourist department to fund the ASBO unit.
  the ASBO unit still pretends it , but we all know that it doesn't in practice.
  
  most councils complain of being hamstrung by the bill for concessionary fares.
  how many councils will agree to kowtow to mr osborne and his freeze?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  If you listened to what GO said the Conservative Government would freeze Council Tax for those Councils who opt to make savings and would then respond by sharing the costs of those savings.
  
  On the basis of what would otherwise be a 5% rise in Council Tax, the Council would need to identify savings amounting to 2.5% and the Government would contribute another 2.5%, enabling the Council Tax to be frozen.
  
  This is costed assuming that all Councils will seek to participate by finding savings from cash saved by reducing what is spent on Government advertising and consultants to 1997 levels.
  
  Public sector spending should share the burden that is being suffered by the private sector. This is one way this can be done and is an intersting idea.
  
  I would expect that there would be considerable pressure from the electorate to participate and for councils to share some of the burden of the economic pain being inflicted.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i did listen to what he said.
  
  he started off with a done deal, then added provisos later.
  
  councils are struggling to survive on present budgets, how can they make more savings/cuts?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Many are doing it even now howard.
  
  Government of course needs to help by not imposing more and more unfunded requirements on local government and not imposing extra rules and red tape, just as it needs to stop doing that for businesses.
  
  That is very much in tune with the Conservative way of thinking as we want LESS government.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  NOTE FOR KEEF:
  Keef are you out there!!?? Ive lost all your contact details. Can you text me to my landline. Well done me oul mucker!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Following on from PaulBs comments recent polls taken show some 43% see Mr Brown as "best in a crisis" compared with 33% for the Tory leader. The Premier is also more trusted on the economy by 43% to 33%.
  The findings suggest voters are convinced by the Prime Minister's claim last week that his experience makes him better-placed to guide the country through its present difficulties.
  However the poll was taken before this week's Conservative conference, h where the Tories have accused Mr Brown of allowing debt to soar, leading to the current turmoil.
  
  Asked which economic pairing - Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling or Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne - would best get Britain through its economic troubles, voters put both on 39%.
  
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  I've always been suspicious of figures for child poverty (how come they are supposedly 'poor' if they can afford a mobile phone and cigarettes?) but I was somewhat shocked by the figures from the Campaign to End Child Poverty showing poverty by constituancy. (Yes it's better than Thanet. Yes you'll have to 'google' for the full figures. Yes it's stupid that we can't put links on this forum)
  
  Taking a definition of child poverty as being where no-one in the family is working more than 16 hours a week or the family is receiving the full amount of Working Tax Credit, Dover has 43% of children who fulfill the criteria....
  
  Could this be due to the fact that over 50% of our new-born are now 'bastards'.
  
  The evidence of the effects on children of growing up without their biological fathers has been well documented. They:
  
  * Are more likely to experience problems with sexual health
  * Are more likely to become teenage parents
  * Are more likely to offend
  * Are more likely to smoke
  * Are more likely to drink alcohol
  * Are more likely to take drugs
  * Are more likely to play truant from school
  * Are more likely to be excluded from school
  * Are more likely to leave school at 16
  * Are more likely to have adjustment problems
  * Are less likely to attain qualifications
  * Are more likely to experience unemployment
  * Are more likely to have low incomes
  * Are more likely be on income support
  * Are more likely to experience homelessness
  * Are more likely to be caught offending and go to jail
  * Are more likely to suffer from long term emotional and psychological problems
  * Are more likely to develop health problems
  * Tend to enter partnerships earlier and more often as a cohabitation
  * Are more likely to divorce or dissolve their cohabiting unions
  * Are more likely to have children outside marriage or outside any partnership
  
  Perhaps it's about time for a return for the Married Man's Allowance?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ermmm Bob not quite so stupid..we have security issues on this open page and regular members will know about the difficulties of keeping it open ..cant go into it any further. I think you have referred to this before but please carry on, if you wish, but without the added facilities.
  
  Marek yes there has been a shift in the public's awareness of Gordon Brown's abilities, only in recent days it must be said..and it is all to do with the credit crunch crises. Its true isnt it..David Cameron might be the thing on lighter days..you could see yourself perhaps joining him for a Pimms on summer days, where you might not be inclined to invite poor ould dour Gordon. However come the economic crises, the sad sack number cruncher would be high on your invite list.
  
  Since the crises the poll for the Independent has shown him, Gordon Brown, personally 10 pts ahead of Cameron.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Yes I agree Paul, both Osborne and Cameron appear to be out of their depth, could the inexperience be showing through?
  I am no great lover of any of them but think I'd prefer Brown on my side during these difficult times .
  By the way what happened to the Tory Conference seems to have been relegated to no more than a couple of minutes on the news.
• howard mcsweney, dover wrote:
  having read bob's post that encompassed 43% of our town's children, all i can say is they have no reason to complain of boredom, with all the things listed for them in that post.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, I find it odd that you choose to place your faith in the man who has so clearly mis-managed the economy over the last 11 years. It will see how the polls settle down after the Conferences are over and tomorrow we have the Leaders Speech.
  
  This week the economic crisis has certainly overshadowed the Conference by taking a lot of the headlines away from us. But that is life...
  
  You have said what you think of Cameron and Osborne but take a look at what the media have been saying and see the contrast.
  
  David Cameron today:
  
  “”””Cameron's astute and measured speech has sealed one deal: it has awoken the Conservative Party to the fact that they really will, in all likelihood, and barring an unforeseen catastrophe (plenty of them about these days), be forming the next Government.
  And this is actually rather daunting. After their 20th Century addiction to power, the Tories went loco for almost a decade and a half, tearing themselves to pieces in the Major years and then for all but a year-and-a-half of the Blair era. Now, detoxified, united and redefined, they have positioned themselves adeptly for their first general election victory since 1992.”””
  Matthew D’Ancona
  www. spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2185911/the-tories-must-show-they-are-up-to-the-task-ahead.thtml
  
  “”””We have just witnessed a prime ministerial address to the nation. Well, we would have done if David Cameron were actually prime minister. It was memorable not so much for the actions he proposed but the tone he struck"We are all in this together, let's stick together and together we'll find a way through" he declared in a message targeted directly at people he described as "worried, confused and concerned". His pledge was not to repeat the political wrangling seen in America because "today was a day for safety, security and protection"””””.
  Nick Robinson
  www. bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/09/prime_ministerial_performance.html
  
  George Osborne yesterday:
  
  (Even Polly Toynbee, amongst her usual tirade of left wing rubbish, acknowledged the effectiveness of GO’s attacks on Brown - BW)
  
  """""""""However, Osborne's speech will strike gold with many voters: council tax is toxically unpopular. Tory policy may be dangerously wrong, but his bazookas aimed straight at Gordon Brown found their mark, disabling what should be a robust Labour response. What a flank Brown exposed when he declared this is now "the end of the age of irresponsibility". How easy he makes it to mock Labour for its years of bedazzlement with big money, for courting casino capitalism, for only daring to tax non-doms after the Tories led the way, for only banning short-selling after Bush did it first."""""""""""
  Polly Toynbee
  www. guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/georgeosborne.toryconference
  
  """""""""""In such a daunting context the shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, delivered a speech of perfect pitch yesterday, placing the blame skilfully on Gordon Brown without appearing too overexcited at a time of "national anxiety", a wisely understated phrase. Osborne pointed out the inconvenient dimension to this drama as far as Labour is concerned: Brown was in charge of the economy for the past decade."""""""
  Steve Richards
  www. independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-richards/steve-richards-if-the-tories-want-power-theyll-have-to-get-their-sums-right-946126.html
  
  """"""""George Osborne spelled out the hard truth in a powerful speech on the economy. He was heard in sombre silence as he named the culprits — greedy bankers and spendaholic Labour.
  He spoke of the need to rein back the outrageous rewards in pay and bonuses for the bankers who have got us into so much trouble.
  And after blasting Gordon Brown for “leaving the cupboard bare”, he vowed to ban governments from running up debts that cripple us just when we need freedom to act.
  The one bright spot in an otherwise uncompromising speech, was his promise to freeze council tax for two years.
  But if Britain is to rebound from the looming crisis, this welcome move must be just the beginning.
  It is hard to argue with Mr Osborne’s charge that Labour has squandered and borrowed too much.
  The Sun, Leader
  www. thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/article244723.ece
  
  """"""Why Osborne’s speech was a success…
  First, he struck the right tone for the times. Second, he nailed the lie that he is a friend of greedy bankers. And third, he had a policy that will grab headlines.
  It was, and had to be, an essentially grim address. The dark economic clouds made that inevitable.
  He made sure that he was not seen as sympathetic to banks and bankers who have engineered the current mess.
  Gordon Brown had effectively laid that charge at the Shadow Chancellor's door and Mr Osborne's job today was to kill it.
  His warning that City bankers who fail will not be allowed to be bailed out went some way to doing that. He stole John McCain's line about “casino capitalism” - something he has so far refused to do.
  But it was also clear that there needed to be a “feelgood” factor. As the Telegraph reported this morning there was a policy announced that aimed to cheer people up.
  The council tax freeze is blinding in its apparent simplicity. Mr Osborne has just been brandishing the leaflets that he intends to send to households trumpeting the plan.
  While not as dramatic as his inheritance tax plan last year it was a clever move.
  Labour will attempt to hit back hard and characterise it as a threat to services, but Mr Osborne believes the country has given up listening to Labour.""""""""""
  Andrew Porter
  www. telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/3102754/Tory-party-conference-analysis-Why-George-Osbornes-speech-was-a-success.html
  
  ----------------------
  
  I would suggest that represents a wide selection of media and not merely the usual Conservative supporting commentators.
  
  A few more quotes there for the Osborne speech as Cameron's emergency statement on the economy was only today. We will hear a lot more from Cameron tomorrow.
  
  
  
• Guest 667 wrote:
  I hate it when the Council Tax goes up and up, but I accept it has to, to some extent. How on earth will the Conservatives freeze the Council Tax, other than going back to what we had with the last Conservative Governments.
  
  Schools that can not afford to purchase the simplest of books.
  Hospitals that could not afford equipment.
  A Police Force and Fire Service that could not recruit.
  Roads that could not be repaired.
  
  All the things the Conservatives say they are going to improve, HOW if the money is not there.
  
  The Conservatives kept even their own Councils short of funds under Thatcher and that is what they are proposing to do all over again. It just proves to me they have not changed. It will be Job cuts, High unemployment and Councils Caped and sell the family jewels all over again.
  
  11 years of clearly mis-managed economy; Oh you mean where unemployment has been at it’s lowest, people have had the feel good factor, have purchased their homes and felt safe in doing so, been able to put a little away, have holidays etc etc. Well if that’s mis-managed, what was it prior to that when people were loosing their jobs, their homes and could not afford to put any thing away or have a holiday and the Government then did not care a dam?
  
  I do not know a lot about politics, I am just the ordinary member of the public but I do know a con job when I see it and so will a lot of others that can remember back to the bad old, don't care a dam for the low paid, days under the Conservatives.
  
• Steve, Dover wrote:
  Well at least this might divert hundreds of millions of hard earned cash away from the fight to save the planet from Man-made global warming and put it into more sensible programmes. Hey, who knows this might put an end to the proposed Windmill folly at Langdon though something tells me otherwise as Gorgon is holding much hope in creating a million "green collar jobs" which is frankly like creating a million more jobs for Clerics to welcome the second coming.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Harry - the last 11 years have been an illusion built on a sea of debt. It did not have a sound foundation and now the bubble has burst and we are paying the price.
  
  Any more metaphors to mix anyone?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Dave's point about the Conservative Conference being wiped from the news pages is accurate and will cause concern at Tory headquarters. These conferences are needed to boost coverage and boost ratings. This isnt happening for the Conservatives right now...as the real news story has moved elsewhere.
  
  In fact on the BBC a few minutes ago one of the pundits was quoting one of the newspapers today and said roughly.."who'd have thought it, a couple of weeks ago the next election was already won, but not now!"
  
  Gordon Brown's Labour conference was a massive media success. A rather surprising revivalist hit..but a hit. He was human after all.
  
  David Cameron speaks today and will receive the obligatory standing ovation, but lets see if his words reach beyond the confines of the conference hall and into the hearts and minds of the general public.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Steve if you are not in favour of WindFarms tell us how you would like to see our energy generated..after all we have to get it from somewhere. Coal, Nuclear, they all have their objectors...but somewhere along the line someone has to give way.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  So how are the Conservatives going to make the figures tie up with the Council Tax,, other than make the Councils make cuts in the services they supply or cut jobs.
  
  Metaphorically speaking of course.
  
  Barry I may not put my points over correctly in your view but this is not personal. You have a far better knowledge and understanding of politics than I do and although I may not agree with you, I do respect that. I only put my points as I see and remember them.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - You are right that the economic news has wiped us off the front pages and this is worrying. It is ironic that the architect of so many of our economic problems can benefit from the problems he caused.
  
  Never mind - there is a long way to go still and the deeply flawed character of this Government has not changed.
  
  Harry - I did not think for one minute it is personal. The whole point is that the public services must share some of the burden and pain of what is happening, because if it all falls on the private sector things will get a whole lot worse, for longer, before we see recovery. It is the wealth creating private sector that ultimately is what will bring recovery and the more damaged it is.....
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  do you seriously believe that our gordon caused the american banking collapse, followed by french, german and dutch banks?
  
  no doubt, by tomorrow, i can add a few more countries.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry perhaps you could remind me why the Tories lost the general election of 11 years ago when according to you they were doing everything right.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, I had lost all faith in Major. He turned out to be a poor leader, was wrong over Maastricht and lost authority over the Party. I am quite prepared and indeed have expressed other areas where I believe he went wrong from joining the ERM as Chancellor (leading to Black Wednesday) and the Options for Change which went too far with military cutbacks.
  
  Howard. Are you being deliberately obtuse or have you really not read the many posts I have made regarding the economic crisis?
  
  You will have seen that I have not blamed Brown for the international matters but for how he has left this country so badly prepared for the downturn. The worse prepared country of the G7 according to the OECD.
  
  We know why of course, he thought he had bannished downturns, an end to boom and bust. How totally foolish.
  
  He thought we would not have a need to pay off all the massive Government debt (on and off balance sheet). He changed the regulation of the Bank of England, so it no longer had a clearly defined role in warning of private and public debt. So no corrective action was taken.
  
  He discouraged savings so people no longer have any cushion and not only that substituted credit cards for saving for things. That makes things so much worse in the recession.
  
  There are many, many other misjudgements he made that all add up to the most incompetent Chancellor in our history. From gold sales to pension reform, he messed up all he handled.
  
  I am not speaking in retrospect either. I have warned of this for years and I highlighted a book called 'Fantasy Island' on the forum that dealt with exactly these matters.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  There is one thing to bear in mind Barry, Mrs. Thatcher opened the floodgates to the credit era, she heralded the start of the boom and bust culture.
  With the aid of credit cards and loans people perhaps quite naturally bought things which in a lot of cases they did not need.
  With no regulations in place banks were virtually throwing money at people. It is a case of if you free the people from all restraints. then what do you free them to.
  Brown cannot be held responsible, to a certain extent, from the crisis which has arisen the Banks much surely shoulder the greater responsibility.
  The banks should have vetted more carefully the people to whom they were lending money, 125% mortgages was sheer lunacy, increasing credit limits on credit and store cards without first consulting the user or carrying out checks to see what other credit they may have was again sheer lunacy.
  I personally had my credit limit raised from £5OOO - £10000 when in fact I don't believe in the damn things.
  The tories removed the credit restraints and now you are more or less saying that Brown should have acted and imposed restraints, you can't have it both ways.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dave
  i remember those times, i had 2 credit cards, which i paid off each time the bill came through.
  
  i kept getting letters increasing my credit limit, more or less accusing me of being a killjoy.
  luckily i had enough responsibilities then, to keep me in check, a youngster confronted with all this apparently free money, would have had a field day in a hi fi shop.
  
  gordon was still in short trousers then.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, we had economic cycles and boom and bust well before Mrs T, she was elected as a result of a bust.....
  
  She did free up the credit markets and that was part of he economic miracle of the 80's. Not to have done so would have assured further decline.
  
  You cannot tell me anything about personal finance as I have seen the good and bad in that respect professionally over the last 20 years. I could write at considerable length on that.
  
  The fact is that private borrowing did not get out of control the way it has now, in the Conservative years, because there was a mechanism in the Bank of England to warn of this.
  
  Brown's reforms of the BoE resulted in the eye being taken off this and as a result interest rates were kept too low for too long. He used the credit boom to fuel his 'Fantasy Island' economy and was warned this was happening and did not act. He is guilty of causing the bubble that has burst in the UK.
  
  There is nothing you and others can do that can whitewash the key and fundamental errors Brown made that have made this crisis much worse than it should be.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  I do believe no provision has been made by our government for the current economic situation. As I have said before, Tony Blair (with his faithful chancellor) did a better job of continuing Thatcher’s legacy than John Major. The parallels between the actions of this government and the ideology sold to the populace in the 1980’s are more than apparent.
  
  We talk of Labour making no provision for this crisis and riding a wave of prosperity and expansion beyond the countries means. This is the same ‘popular capitalism’ that was bought by so many in the 1980s are, now well documented as a decade of greed. People were given the ability to indulge in not what was needed but what they wanted, a concept that was fairly alien to the working class. My father still to this day will not buy anything he cannot afford at that point; our family cars were saved for and not bought on HP. Admittedly our cars were not as flashy as our neighbours but my Dad was always quite proud that he wasn’t getting ripped off to make somebody else richer!
  
  With this kind of sentiment destroyed through the 1980s, people were led to the illusion that ‘you can really have it if you really want’; a lie that has been used throughout time, in many manifestations, to keep the people at the bottom working, largely to the benefit the people at the top. From the ‘protestant work ethic’ to ‘right to buy’ these carrots have always worked at masking the true agenda. The borrowing culture was galvanized by Thatcher’s government and merely seen to conclusion by our current. Perhaps if the Conservatives get in this time we can see the total destruction of shared goals and responsibility; everyman for himself, another lie of the 80’s. Mankind has not got to this point through autonomy, why is it a feasible choice now. Unfortunately this seed was planted and it’s fairly obvious that it would be taken to an obvious conclusion, “this family lark is expensive and hard work, we’d be better off splitting up!” (Unfortunately this individualist idea has been facilitated by left wing ideology)
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that the PM has made a good in current circumstances.
  
  no place now for wizz kids and high flyers, just experience and calm heads.
  
  
• Bern, Dover wrote:
  Same as many things, a wise, mature approach is the one that is more likely to work.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Twice in one week the Tories have been wrong-footed, experience and cool headiness is what we need, not a whiz kid that spends his time playing up to the cameras and emits a lot of waffle.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  There was much talk and if you like false dawns, about the Gordon Brown fightback, but when it actually came it took all by surprise. There were two main aspects to it. The conference speech which showed a warmth ne'er seen before. He had clearly taken advice from the Tony Blair manual on presentation and it worked bigtime. The new more human less dour Gordon was seen in public for the first time and what a success it was.
  
  The second aspect was the reshuffle. As Dave said earlier, this left everyone, including the Tories and Fleet St totally wrongfooted, and people generally were gobsmacked in admiration. Of course some dont like it, one thinks of the rude ramblings of the Daily Mail, but overall it has added real interest and momentum to the once flagging Labour Government. The next election is far from lost for Labour.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  This will be an interesting one to watch I'm sure there must be good reasoning behind it a big gamble or not we shall see.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  It's amazing that the whole world nearly has embraced and welcomed with open arms the nationalisation of most of the world banks.
  
  The tory capitalists are totally against nationalisation but when the going gets tough and their millions are at stake they run cap in hand to the Govt crying nay demanding that the Govt ie the taxpayer bail them out.It's a funny old world..innit..as the kids say.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I think the financial institutes are in a worse state than at any time since 1929 so the steps being taken are having to be accepted, even by the most right wing free marketeers. I'm not sure the US bailout is the right way forward but the package put together by the UK government to bolster the banks here looks very reassuring, maybe Gordon Brown is the right man to guide us through this.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  According to the BBC Kent County Council has £50m in Iceland- based banks!
  
  I seem to remember that our own beloved DDC a number of years ago lost a pile of OUR money when they invested in BCCI just before it went belly up.
  
  Does anyone know whether the witless denizens of Fort Whitfield are amongst the many UK councils who have 'invested' our money in Iceland or had they already blown it all on junkets and expensive mail shots???
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the bit i do not quite understand at present is that it appears that uk investors have moved their money abroad(ok it is just the internet).
  
  why are uk taxpayers bailing them out?
  
  marek made a good point earlier, our betters that were so far above us plebs, and knew so much more, when in trouble though, they look to the low paid who cannot afford to invest to save their hides.
• John Goodwin, Dover wrote:
  Bob,DDC do have investments but as far as I know nothing in any accounts in Iceland,and they are still receiving monies from the BCCI fund managers.
  
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  John,
  
  'they are still receiving monies from the BCCI fund managers'.
  
  I believe that as of 15 April claims against BCCI were just over 8,000 US$ million, with the provision of just over 200 US$ millions to creditors, this represents a dividend of just over 2.6%.
  
  Yes it's 'monies' but it's pounds turning into pence.....
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  The BBC are reporting that Kent County Council has £50 million in Iceland based banks.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Sid,
  
  Catch up! See my post of a couple of hours ago.....
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  To quote Sid from an earlier comment 'I'm not sure the US bailout is the right way forward but the package put together by the UK government to bolster the banks here looks very reassuring, maybe Gordon Brown is the right man to guide us through this.'.
  
  Unfortunately the Lesson of the Great Depression was that it is next to impossible to get institutions to lend and companies/consumers to borrow once fear sets in. Renowned economist John Maynard Keynes said that trying to get banks to lend and borrowers to borrow during a banking crisis is like trying to “push on a string”; in other words it is impossible.
  
  Similarly in the 1990’s, the Bank of Japan found trying to resuscitate lending in the wake of the Japan’s stock market collapse was impossible.
  
  The Bank of Japan even went to the extreme of making interest rates negative, in other words they paid you to borrow, and it proved ineffectual.
  
  Don't forget that Gordon Brown was the financial genius who sold 60% of our gold reserves at 275$ an ounce, close to the 20year lowest price.
  
  FWIW whilst he crows about UK economic growth, which averaged 2.6% between 1997 and 2006, whilst it was higher than the Eorozone, it was still lower than any other English speaking country.
  
  This is what happens when you rely on a man with a PhD in History rather than an economist to run the economy.....
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Given that the Councils are struggling with loans, debts, losses, rising prices, like the rest of us, the rabbit out of the hat initiative from Shadow Cancellor George Osborne at the recent Conservative Conference, looks increasingly like half baked lunacy. You might remember, while looking ever more the schoolboy, he announced a 'freeze' on council tax. The small print later revealed he needed the councils of the uk to want to do it with him, to agree to do it with him. Its not going to happen. Is this the best economic thinking the Conservatives can come up with in the middle of an unprecedented global slump.
  
  When you look at the state of play generally, getting worse every day due to worldwide economic catastrophe, is this the guy you would want looking after the economy?! I dont thinkso...because even this council tax freeze idea, lets face it a fairly small measure looking for big headlines, is a total non runner and rather out of touch.
  
  So as Sid said earlier, the Brown/Darling combination is looking more like the ticket we require now, rather than the young boy inexperience of Cameron/Osborne, who perhaps have already had their short time in the sun.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Bob
  I am not too sure about Dover but here are some figures I did find
  
  Kent County Council - has £50 million deposited in troubled Landsbanki and its UK subsidiary Heritable, as well as Glitnir Bank,
  more than 20 others are thought to have exposure running into millions of pounds.Here's silly old me thinking that the reason we don't have Park wardens,clean streets,well lit roads etc was that the councils were short of spondolicks and living from hand to mouth.
  
  Transport for London said it has a £40m deposit with Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, which has been placed into administration.Where do they get this sort of cash I thought they were supposed to be cash strapped!.
  
  The Local Government Association urged the Government to guarantee them against any losses, after Chancellor Alistair Darling announced he will protect the savings of private investors in Icelandic banks but has said bugger all about the councils.
  
  Conservatives said town halls faced a "massive financial shock", threatening council tax hikes or cuts in local services but the LGA insisted that frontline services should not be affected by any losses.
  8 London borough councils have investments in Icelandic banks which may be at risk.
  
  Westminster City Council confirmed it had £17 million tied up in Icelandic accounts, while other exposed councils include Havering in east London (£12.5 million), Sutton in south London (£5.5 million) and Ipswich Borough Council.
  
  Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman said the Government was ready to sit down and talk with any council affected but as of todays news on Invicta FM no agreement had been made to bail out any councils..
  
  It was nice to bump into you the other day.I told 'grumpy' and he thought it would be a good idea to meet for a jar when your next in Dover.
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I have just read that Dover District Council has £1 miilion in one of the Icelandic Banks.
  
  First BCCI and now this, it is surely time a new broom swept away some of lords and masters.
  
  I suppose the council tax payer will pick up the bill whilst those responsible get away scot free.
  
  The two captains of the ship the Chief Executive and the leader of the Council should surely do the decent thing and stand down.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Dave said
  
  'I have just read that Dover District Council has £1 million in one of the Icelandic Banks.'
  
  I'd be grateful to know from where you have gleaned this information (not that I'm doubting it for one minute with that crowd of intellectual pygmies).
  
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  Found it.......kentnews.co.uk....
  
  Dover District Council has revealed it invested £1 million in failed Icelandic bank Landsbanki.
  
  Town hall chiefs said the amount at risk is a fraction of the authority’s overall investments, but admitted the loss of the money would be a “very serious matter”.
  
  A spokesman said: “Eleven months ago Dover District Council made a fixed-term deposit with Landsbanki for one year.
  
  “At the time Landsbanki had a high credit rating and the deposit was made as part of the normal treasury management operations of the council.
  
  “The deposit was £1 million. This is a relatively small proportion (four per cent) of the council's total investments and the council is working to ensure that it will not have any immediate impact on services. It is also stressed that these monies are at risk rather than confirmed as lost. Nonetheless, the potential loss of this investment is a very serious matter for the council tax payers of the district.”
  
  Rhymes with name of MP but starts with an 'T'.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I should like to know if DDC has anymore of our money stashed away in foreign banks and if so, how much
  Perhaps they should deposit a couple of spare million in the Bank of Zimbabwe, I gather they offer a phenomenal interest rate.
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Men at the top looking after the Council finance should be accountable and be asked to resign but they will have taken advice from Large Financial Advisory Companies and it is them that should also be pulled into the courts for their poor advice.
  
  The advice must have been poor as some Council's withdrew their money up to a year ago when they got the advice to do so.
  
  It is said Jo public will not be effected, well we will see when in March the new Council Tax bills come out, that is when they will try raking it back.
  
  I know some of the money is pension money, but not all of it is. So if these Councils have so much money to invest, why the continued shout of "We have no money" and putting the Council tax up by over inflation rises year in year out.
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Quite right Harry, Brighton Council knew the Icelandic Banks were in trouble some time ago and withdrew all their funds.
  Maybe those responsible will at the very least agree to their pensions being frozen, we all have to pay for our mistakes.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  some interesting posts here.
  
  firstly the government advised councils some time ago to spread their investments, in order that any risk is spread evenly.
  i must then add that the icelandic banks were offering a better deal.
  
  surely a local authority would ask the question "why"?
  i thought that they would go for safety first.
  
  the question was asked how does the council have all this money to invest?
  
  i would venture the suggestion that it is the savings were made in getting shot of litter bins, seating, the tourism dept and a few other things.
  
  it is good to know that they are looking out for us.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Yesterday John Goodwin wrote:-
  
  'DDC do have investments but as far as I know nothing in any accounts in Iceland'
  
  It would appear, John, that you knew bugger all.
  
  If ignorance is bliss John must be a happy chappy!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Perhaps JHG mean't the frozen food company.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bob
  
  john is an opposition councillor, i doubt that the rulling party would furnish him with full details of investments.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  The ruling party should tellus what investments they have and their value.
  The people of Dover who see a town in virtual terminal decline deserve some answers. Quite rightly people are incensed with the way their money has been so unwisely invested.
  I repeat that the captains of the ship, the chief executive and the leader of the council should resign at the very least this is what most people would like to see, certainly Jo public who struggles to pay his ever increasing council tax.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  I fail to see why the incompetents at Fort Whitfield, be they rulling or otherwise, should keep ANY information about what they are doing with OUR money from John (as an opposition councillor) or indeed me as a humble (sic) member of their electorate.
  
  Presumably they are all honourable men and women and would be quite happy to have ALL of their dealings open to us, whom they are supposed to represent?
  
  If not........ Why not?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bob
  i can see why you put (sic) after the word humble.
  
  the fact remains you did post a personal attack on goody, he can only recount what he knows.
  rest assured, our leaders up at the fort know exactly what they are doing.
  
  they will guide us through the storm.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bob
  i can see why you put (sic) after the word humble.
  
  the fact remains you did post a personal attack on goody, he can only recount what he knows.
  rest assured, our leaders up at the fort know exactly what they are doing.
  
  they will guide us through the storm.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  Howard,
  
  You state 'you did post a personal attack on goody'.
  
  Twaddle.
  
  John said 'DDC do have investments but as far as I know nothing in any accounts in Iceland'
  
  This, the fact of the investments, has been found to be demonstrably untrue.
  
  The word 'ignorance' means lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. (from the greek 'gnosis' which translates as knowlege).
  
  By using the phrase 'as far as I know' John showed himself to be ignorant of the facts.
  
  As for your comment that 'our leaders up at the fort know exactly what they are doing' you will be pleased to know that I'm now off to bed still giggling.........
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  The fact is Howard, do you consider that those responsible should resign?
  I think Jo public would certainly like to see some blood-letting.
• Guest 653 wrote:
  I've never heard so much twaddle about investments and resigning for ages.
  
  All local authorites have money to invest, they can't run a council without any money. They are also advised by the Government who is a recommended safe investment house and who isn't.
  
  There is a financial prudency protocol that local authorities have to go through, they can't just invest willy-nilly and no authority can operate on the bones of its arse.
  
  If you are talking about financial proberty and prudency, then when the Conservatives took over the administration in 2003, there was a massive hole in the accounts that they (the Labour administration) had been warned about (by the officers) for years and still they allowed it to get worse.
  
  The senior financial officers at DDC know what they are doing, as does the Leader and the Chief Executive.
  
  One million pounds is an important sum of money in anyone's language, but it isn't lost - yet.
  
  The current situation with the Banks across the globe is almost surreal, but it will come back O.K. it may take a while though.
  
  RBS whose shares hit something like 79p at the beginning of the week, are, as a company, worth trillions. As shares rise in the future and rise they will, the tax payers can and probably will, do very nicely.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Roger
  
  You run the very successful Dover Loyalty Scheme which I and many others on this forum fully support.We are all urged to shop locally.If that is good enough for Joe Public then why is it not good enough for Dover District Council.They should lead by example.Their logo should read read "your money invested in your future in Dover and for Dover".
  
  Not "your money gambled on a frozen wasteland of 250,000 people in the hope of making a quick profit".
  
  If they want to gamble they could do far worse than putting £1 million on England to win on Saturday.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  Well it looks like Gordon's cunning plan is working? The FTSE has just dropped through the 4000 barrier!
  
  What a way to celebrate World Mental Health Day!!!!!
  
  As for England on Saturday Marek, Gordon has also wished them the best of luck. This man is a Jonah so it looks like plucky Kazakhstan are in with a good chance!
• Dover, Dover wrote:
  Im very surprized that Dover District council has got itself caught up in this, when this happened before they had invested and\ lost money.
  
  
  It does beg the\question who are these\advisors and are\ they up to the job?
  
  
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  I've just been up to Whitfield to do 'moonies' at the Council Offices. I know its neither clever nor grown up but I feel so much better.
  
  While I was there I went into Homebase and found that they are doing wheelbarrows for under £25.
  
  An ideal purchase, for the period ahead (when the government will take us into a period of hyper-inflation by printing money) to carry my cash when I go shopping at TESCO.........
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Twaddle or not Roger the ordinary person who probably does not know the ins and outs of politics like you only sees one thing and that is for the second time DDC has lost for the taxpayer a large sum of money.
  I do appreciate that Councils have to have some funds in reserve but why the obvious secrecy about where it is deposited and the amounts involved.
  Watch your television news Roger people are angry and quite rightly so, it is their money at risk and ultimately one way or another it is them that are having to make good the loss.
  
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  O.K. Iwas wrong Bob,but after studying the 90 page statement of accounts the Council have money invested in a series of places,in places like LOBO's Lender option Borrowers Option and Public Works Loan Boards,and no where does in mention any Icelandic conection,the reason I said I didn't think so is because I didn't think so,now I have had time to go through the document it still does not say where this money is invested,it does say that we recieved,£21,000 from the Board of Liquidators for the bank of BCCI.But it does say that the Council has no financial assets or Liabilities denominations in foreign currencies and thus has NO exposure arising from movements in exchange rates.So you can see why I believed that no money was involved in overseas banking.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  To be fair to John, in the old days of committees on the District Council all members on the Finance Committee would have access to details of the council's investments and would be in the know. With the current Cabinet system it's not so easy. The senior councillors of the ruling group would know where the money was being put, the test would be if the money was invested on a a short or long term basis. If it was short-term why wasn't it pulled?
• Guest 667 wrote:
  Of course they have to invest, but why in a bank other County & District Councils were pulling their money out of 12 to 24 moths ago because of advicce they had received?
  
  Who gives our Council and Kent County Council Financial advice, name and shame so others can stay clear.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i think that there is a lot of unneccesary worrying.
  
  mr aziz has his finger on the pulse and will recoup all monies laid out with interest.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  God help us Howard, most of that lot couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Paul
  You are so right in fact Cameron has been critized for remaining silent.Not a criticism I would level at him..the quieter the better in my opinion but the silent disease appears to have spread to the Lib/Dem party.Can anyone remember any sort of statement by Clegg?The only thing I could find was on the Lib/Dem homepage where he said"we must all support the govt during this financial crisis" wise words which lead me to believe that Brown may have got it right.
  Brown has been invited to speak to the Eurozone even though we are not a member.Interesting times.When the phone rang during a recent interview he joked that it was probably another bank ringing to tell him they were going bust.So his humour has returned which shows a more confident Brown than of late.
• keith, dover wrote:
  on the question of labour or tory
  both have been caught out by these investments
  
  U must question the financial advisors though
• bern, dover wrote:
  marek, you are right: sometimes it takes agenuine crisis to show who has the savvy to perform and to bring out the tiger in people. It does look as if G Brown has found the tiger within!!!
• Bob Frost, DEal wrote:
  'U must question the financial advisors though'.
  
  It would now appear that a single firm of consultants, Sector Treasury Services, gave financial advice to more than 250 public authorities.
  
  Sector Treasury Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of C(r)apita, the controversial 'outsourcing' company which has ballooned into a multi-billion-pound concern under Labour.
  
  On March 23, 2006, Executive Chairman of C(r)apita, Rod Aldridge OBE resigned in the aftermath of claims that contracts awarded to the Group were influenced by his loan of £1 million to the Labour Party.
  
  Aldridge had overseen the company's growth from a £100 million company in 1997 (when Labour came to power) to a £4 billion FTSE-100 member in 2006 .
  
  In essence C(r)apita are an outsourcing company who have been given contracts by ZaNuLabour to run everything from the television licence fee to the Criminal Records Bureau for the Home Office.
  
  C(r)apita Financial Administrators (CFA), was recently fined £300,000 for having poor anti-fraud controls by the Financial Services Authority.
  
  
  
  
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Marek
  I was told he had no chance, hes fighting back now, and tories not looking so good
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Just back from a week in Spain but still kept in touch with events and will have a lot to post when I get a chance though I will be very busy indeed next week.
  
  All I will say to Keith and other Labour supporters. We are seeing a reaction to an immediate crisis and at such times, particularly when an Opposition correctly decides on a bi-partisan approach to it, there is always a rally around the Government.
  
  The crisis, however, will soon ease off and give way to the pain of a grinding recession and the bi-partisan approach will not last beyond the end of the crisis. When that happens we will again have a very different ball game as the reality of Gordon Brown's mismanagement of the UK economy hits home and takes centre stage over the global problem.
  
  The reduced Conservative lead (now at a 'mere; 10%) will increase again and Brown will be back in his bunker.
  
  On that point, does anyone else feel somewhat uncomfortable at the way Brown apprears to be enjoying himself with the economic woes? there is something indecent about seeing him smiling (for once) as people are worried about their jobs.
  
  I will have a lot more to say when I get the chance.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bob, what you say is very interesting and quite disturbing.
  
  Outsourcing to third party advisers is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does depend on the scope of their role. Local Authorities and other public bodies are very different in their needs compared to individuals and small companies and they do require a very different approach so the majority of what most people understand as financial advisers (such as myself) would not be appropriate for the role.
  
  If Capita are acting on a discretionary basis I would be more worried than if they were acting in a purely advisery role. The local authority should have its own in-house legal and treasury team overseeing matters. As someone who goes on about the need for diversification I also consider it to be very unhealthy to have a single company responsible for so much public money.
  
  It would be interesting to see any correlation between the local authorities advised by Capita and those with investmenst in Iceland.
  
  I would like to expand and explain more about the iceland issue but have no time, for now!! Perhaps later.
• Bob Frost, DEAL wrote:
  Barry,
  
  I look forward to you comments re. Iceland.
  
  Frankly I think we are in for the mother of all recessions with massive restructuring with huge social consequences and the demise of the welfare/dependancy state.
  
  Whilst asset prices are dropping we are looking to hyper inflation as food and energy prices move inexorably upwards (well what do you expect when you have allowed the population to increase to an extent where you can no longer produce enough food as a nation to feed them or energy to keep them warm?).
  
  Methinks the FTSE and DOW are still a long way from bottoming out and the best the idiots can come up with is pumping even more borrowed money into the system when this was the problem in the first place.
  
  Meanwhile at Frost Villas things are fairly sorted.
  
  I used the wheelbarrow today to go to Sainsburys to stock up with tinned food and have got a load of water purification tablets. I've also got some wind-up LED torches for when the power goes and have a baseball bat behind the door and have got the gun-cabinet sorted out in case of civil unrest.
  
  I've paid off the mortgage and all credit cards and have reduced my savings with Nationwide poking the money into Premium Bonds and Krugerrands. I've also flogged the car and bought a new bicycle.
  
  Tomorrow I'm off to stock up the boat in case I end up having to flee abroad.
  
  FWIW I had a very nice ride on the bike through Eastry and Nonnington to the excellent Yew Tree at Barfreston (decent beer and no riff-raff/claimants/poor people).
  
  Unfortunately the afternoon was marred by a trip to Whitfield McDonalds which seemed to be full of single parents with rat-faced children eating with their mouths open before they waddled off to their un-taxed cars.
  
  In all seriousness if I had a backside half as big as most of them I wouldn't have bothered buying a Brooks saddle!
  
  
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  brilliant stuff robert, we need a good laugh in these hard times.
• marek, dover wrote:
  Gordon Brown claimed victory in his battle to persuade European leaders that a British-style bank bail-out can stem global financial turmoil.
  The Prime Minister emerged from a crunch summit in Paris convinced that the EU will follow his blueprint for easing the crisis.
  "I am confident after talking to my European colleagues that more liquidity, funding for the medium term loans necessary for businesses and mortgages and the recapitalisation of banks are part of their thinking as well," he told journalists.
  He continued: "The difficulty that we have got at the moment is in restoring confidence in the banking system. What is missing is confidence itself. I believe that the action we have taken in Britain will restore that, and we will see over the next few days worldwide action that will also see confidence restored."
  Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling unveiled their £500 billion package designed to stabilise the ailing banking system last week. It will see the Government buy up to £50 billion worth of shares in banks and give massive guarantees to interbank lending.
  The US followed suit with similar plans on Saturday after talks between the G7 nations in Washington.
  A draft declaration from the 15 eurozone countries sets out their intention to guarantee "for an interim period and on appropriate commercial terms" new debts caused by bank lending. The statement said the scheme would be "limited in amount", and individual nations will decide the level of their support.
  Mr Brown's attendance at a meeting of single currency members was unprecedented, and offered a golden opportunity to push his vision of co-ordinated global action.
  However, speaking after briefing fellow leaders, he played down his role in driving through the plan. "No one country can solve a global problem on its own," he said. "We are working together in Europe and across the Atlantic and around the world."
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Be wary about 'claims of victory' from politicians in these circumstances as they all (whatever party) like to take the credit where the real work is done by the experts in the backrooms who 'sell' their solutions to the politicians. Brown may well have done a good job in selling aspects of the British plan to Europe but, remember, their options are limited being between a rock and a hard place.
  
  I am sure that more new of what happened and how it happened will emerge in future.
  
  For now it is all about emergency action to deal with the immediate crisis but we will all be paying the price in the aftermath.
  
  More later.... About the Iceland banks perhaps and whether DDC/KCC and others were right or wrong to invest in their banks.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  BAZ
  Your right on the claiming victory, thats why i have always said GB will fight back and it will be the voters on the day who decides
  not u BAZ
  But nice to hear from you
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Hi Keith. We will certainly be facing an even more interesting political situation when the crisis ends.
  
  Bob, and others....
  Back to Icelandic Banks.
  
  I will be totally non Party political, looking at it from a financial point of view. This is a long post as it is a complex issue and it is important to make sure it is dealt with properly.
  
  First of all I have no inside knowledge of what investments DDC/KCC have or even which Icelandic Banks are involved but I can make reasonably informed assumptions.
  
  The two main banks that have been taking UK deposits are Kaupthing Edge Savings and Icesave. It is possible that DDC/KCC went via institutional routes direct to Iceland but I think it is unlikely as this may involve additional currency risk.
  
  Kaupthing are part of the Singer and Friedlander Group who have been operating successfully under the UK regulatory regime for sometime though the Kaupthing brand is fairly recent in the UK.
  
  Icesave are operating in the UK under new ‘passporting’ rules introduced by the EU affecting the whole EEA. These rules were developed to encourage cross border financial services. The FSA though still has its regulatory responsibilities and is the ‘backstop’ guarantor ensuring that Icesave retail savers have the full protection offered by British institutions.
  
  The regulators are an important factor in this. In 1997 the regulatory regime for banks was changed and the role played by the Bank of England was shared with the FSA and the Treasury. Many believe, for good reasons, that these changes are central to many of our domestic problems that are making the UK situation worse in this global crisis.
  
  For an institution to act as a deposit taker they must fulfil a range of regulatory requirements and the FSA have stated as recently as the summer that these Icelandic Banks meet the requirements. That may give rise to some serious regulatory questions about these requirements but we must remember that the current situation is an extraordinary one. The real question here must be about the role of our regulators and the overall regulatory system that is operating.
  
  It would be wrong to describe, certainly retail clients, as investing offshore when placing money into the UK operations of these banks. Offshore investing usually implies doing so free from the UK regulatory and tax authorities, this is not the case with these banks.
  
  On comparisons they have both frequently appeared as offering among the top 10 savings rates to retail clients. For Cash ISAs they have been jostling for position alongside Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, Kent Reliance, National Savings and Abbey among others. Their rates have not been looking ‘too good to be true’ and the terms they have offered have been quite good.
  
  The vast majority of retail consumers will have funds below the deposit guarantee so their money is safe. To refresh your memory £50,000 per person is guaranteed so a joint account is OK up to £100,000. There is no reason to think that they have in any way been unwise or reckless to invest in these companies.
  
  The position of public bodies is very different though due to the much larger sums involved.
  
  First of all they are limited in the scope of where they can invest public money and must not take excessive risks even with a small proportion of the funds. They are, however, duty bound to seek the best possible returns.
  
  Let us be clear though, there is no such thing as risk free investment, there are only different types of risk.
  
  These risks are dealt with through diversification and spreading the risk. This diversification can take many forms, different institutions, different asset types, and so on.
  
  The charity that invested a third of its whole portfolio into a single bank probably acted irresponsibly and did not diversify enough. I suspect that they did not seek qualified advice and might find themselves as a result in trouble with the Charity Commissioners.
  
  Someone suggested that public bodies should be restricted to investing only via the big UK banks. That is wrong, let me demonstrate in a highly simplified way why that is so.
  
  Lets look at two public bodies and assume they have £20m to invest: Body 1 is where they invest utilising all the market. Body 2 is where they are restricted to the Big Four banks.
  
  Body 1 might decide to utilise, say 20 institutions at any one time. The money can and would be actively managed and traded. There would also be more than 20 institutions competing for the money, driving up the returns being offered.
  
  Body 2 is the captive of the big four banks. There will be less trading, less competition for the money. Lower rates of returns are inevitable. Body 2 itself will have less negotiating power simply because the banks know they have no choice.
  
  Body 1 might be exposed to a greater risk of an institution going bust but because they are diversified it is less of a problem.
  
  I can state with considerable confidence that Body 1 will achieve far better compounded returns than Body 2. I am also certain that after a period of 5 years, certainly 10 years, that if one of Body 1’s institutions went bust losing it £1m, the compounded gains would have more than covered the loss when compared to what would be made by Body 2.
  
  Coming back to what has actually happened. As I have said, we have had an extraordinary range of problems arise that have given rise to these losses.
  
  To establish whether DDC were well advised you would need to have at your disposal a lot of information. Just for starters you would need to know not just the total amount of money invested to see how big a proportion the reported £1m is, but you would also need to understand exactly where the rest is invested. Those saying people should be sacked or who claim DDC have been incompetent do not have any basis to say that without this information and more.
  
  Someone mentioned Brighton and Hove (B&H) where they pulled out of Icelandic Banks because of concerns at the speed at which these banks were growing. Unfavourable comparisons were made with DDC.
  
  Maybe the person at B&H should get a good pay rise and a pat on the back, but perhaps not… It could indeed have been good judgement, there will always be someone who takes a different view and as a result get it right when the rest are wrong. It could also have been a lucky call. Or it might be that B&H take an overly cautious approach to investment that has had long term implications for the returns achieved on their investments. It could well be that as a result their Council Tax payers have been ill-served over the years compared to DDC despite DDC losing £1m.
  
  The only way you can tell is by direct comparison over a 5 and 10 year periods looking at compounded returns, ending in the loss and taking that into account.
  
  We all want someone to blame and scapegoats for these losses. Real life is not as easy as that.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  A very informative post.You say however that those of us who have asked that certain people to be held accountable for their actions have no basis to say so.My basis is that the leaders at Thanet and Dartford which do not have money in Iceland revealed they knew of the dangers before last week.The money they did have invested in Icelandic banks was withdrawn a few weeks ago.A spokesman said that the vulnerability of Icelandic banks has been highlighted by their advisers for the last TWO years.
  
  How come they knew something which our lot didn't or didn't take heed of?This question was put to the leader of the KCC on Sunday by Andrew Marr on TV.He stumbled around offered no explanation or an answer and he didn't have the good grace to put his hands up to making a mistake.Its a lie when institutions claim they could have no prior knowledge of the impending collapse of the Icelandic banks when obviously Dartford and Thanet did.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, speaking with hindsight is very easy. You might find a bit of 'blowing their own trumpets' going on to exaggerate their own positions so they are seen in a favourable light.
  
  Are they also speaking directly like for like? I have addressed my comments towards those two with which I am familiar and became significant UK retail players.
  
  There are other Icelandic Banks and at least one of them has had a more questionable standing and that may well be why it is not a retail player here. Perhaps it is this bank to which some comments have been directed by Dartford and Thanet,we do not know exactly what bank(s) are referred to and in which DDC and KCC invested.
  
  These two banks I mentioned have only really moved into the UK retail market in a big way in the last couple of years. Not being involved in institutional investment I am not sure about previous to that.
  
  I still say that you cannot compare without the full facts as I described. If what they say is acccurate, however and they are indeed talking like for like then it raises many, many, more questions about the role of the regulators. For me that is the main problem here.
  
• Guest 670 wrote:
  Brighton Council knew thatthe Icelandic banks were unstabke some months ago and withdrew all of their deposits.
  Barry it is no good talking about hindsight the fact is that DDC and KCC have potentially lost the taxpayer £51 million this coupled with what DDC invested with the collapsed BCCI is a disgrace. Ultimately it will have to be the taxpayer that makes good the losses whether it be fromgovernment funding or through the Council tax.
  In any walk of life it is the men at the top that take responsibility for so-called mistakes and it is them that should hold their hands up and say they got it wrong and as a result of public fury are resigning.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave1. You have not addressed the actual points I raised and again you just speak from a very limited knowledge of what happened.
  
  I mentioned the Brighton case and explained the situation in context.
  
  You may want to have a go at what happened and that is your priviledge, but a more measured and informed approach is more responsible.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I have little political knowledge I talk merely as a member of the public who has over the last few days seen one helluva mess.
  Disguise anything you like with your obvious political knowledge but people may see things differently and in a much more simple light. The fact still remains that the DDC & KCC have potentially lost the taxpayer £51 million and nothing can detract from that.
  I know one thing, when I was in business anybody that lost me as little as £100.00 was sacked as being incompotent. Lose £51 million and it boils down to hindsight, mistakes or faceless regulators. Perhaps we could say it was an act of god and that gets them all off the hook.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave. I have deliberately not tackled the Icelandic Bank issue on any kind of political basis but from a financial basis.
  
  The big question is, how much does a (marginally) riskier strategy make over a period of time compared to what might be regarded as a (marginally) less riskier strategy. Does the difference justify the risk?
  
  You and I are not in a position to judge that as we have no figures. If the DDC strategy has achieved compounded returns over the last 10 years, less the amount that may have been lost comes to more than, say, Thanet might have, then taxpayers will have gained despite the loss.
  
  You (and I) dont even know the percentage of thd DDC/KCC portfolios that is represented by Icelandic Banks.
  
  Look, Dave. I invest myself via a pension and Stocks and Shares ISAs. I also recommend such collective investments to my clients. This is through a diversified range of investment funds that are themselves diversified into individual stocks. Funds get selected by myself on a best of breed basis using qualative measures (not past performance). I am quite sure that even these managers running these funds, the very best there are, will have sometimes bought a stock that goes belly up. What is important to me and my clients, indeed also to you, is the overall performance of the portfolios. It is no different in the case of the DDC/KCC money.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Getting back to politics. I just had to share these snippets found while checking out a few nes stories about the economic situation.
  
  Gordon Brown is really losing it and must be living in some kind of parallel universe or maybe he has some kind of mental breakdown. Look at these ‘Brownies’.
  
  This taken from the Spectator Coffee House, by Fraser Nelson:
  “”””””””””””””””””””””””At the Prime Minister’s press conference today:
  “I have to say we face this situation with relatively low national debt because of the steps we have taken since 1997, where we wiped off perhaps more than around £100 billion of debt by reducing the proportion of debt in our national income.”
  
  Huh? The ONS is unequivocal: net debt was £351bn in May 1997 and £632bn in August – or £545bn if you exclude Northern Rock. So where is his “wiping out” of £100 billion? Normally with a Brownie you can see how he cooked up the fake figure. But this time, it really does look like he just made it up.
  
  Consider this for a moment. As Brown chastises bankers for dishonest off balance sheet accounting, he is concocting figures live on national television. There has never been a greater need for honesty but Brown remains unable to level with the public about the amount of debt his government has saddled us with.””””””””””””””””””””””
  
  Then there is this that I found on the Times On-Line from Daniel Finkelstein
  
  “””””””””””””””””””””An hilarious exchange in Gordon Brown's interview with the Daily Mail on Saturday:::::::::::::
  
  So I had come to Downing Street in search of the real Gordon Brown. When we finally manage to snatch some time in the study on the first floor, I ask if he has any regrets about his boast: 'No more boom and bust.'
  
  'I actually said, 'No more Tory boom and bust,' he replies.
  
  Hilarious for two reasons.
  
  First, abolishing Tory boom and bust by turning it into Labour boom and bust would hardly have been an achievement worth mentioning.
  
  Second, his lame claim isn't even true.
  
  In March 2006 he said this: I have said before: no return to boom and bust…...
  
  ………..His reply is so laughable it deserves to become famous, and perhaps, in time, it will.””””””””””””””””””””””
  
  What is wrong with this man! He is a national embarrassment.
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I'd have to ask why it is we dont have the figures, or the facts of the KCC and DDC investments in Icelandic banks. Both are known for their spin and do not seem at this time willing or capable of letting us, the council tax payers, know fully what's been going on.
  I'm also worried, knowing a little of their respective portofolios, that the KCC may have been using pension fund money. If they have and it has been lost then heads should roll.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  My point entirely Sid. We have a right to know and yes heads should roll not only at KCC but DDC as well. By the way they did use pension fund money but have said that staff will not be affected.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  let us cut through all the fog surounding this issue.
  
  our premier(who i thought until a few weeks ago was a right doughnut)
  acted immediately and froze icelandic assets in our country.
  
  this amounted to 4 billion used oncers.
  money owed to our citizens 3 billion.
  
  he invoked anti terrorist laws to do this.
  legally wrong?
  who cares
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Eric S. Maskin from the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA was today quoted as saying that Britains Brown & Darling Economic rescue plan leads the world while the US and Europe play 'catch up'.
  Praise indeed.In fact the Americans after struggling to get their economic bailout through Congress have ripped up their plan and decided to adopt Browns plan of investing in the banks.
  
  ps Just in case you wonder what Mr Maskins credentials are, he won last years Nobel Prize for Economics.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Andrew Neil writes:
  Columnists who were recently queuing up to demand Gordon Brown's head are now acclaiming the PM as the new saviour of the world, making themselves look ridiculous in the process. It is not just bankers whose reputations have been destroyed by the financial crisis; some of the commentariat have seen their reputations for accuracy and judgement trashed as well.
  
• Guest 645 wrote:
  My previous posting should read ..Prof Paul Krugeman not Maskin who are both of Princeton University.He basically said Brown and Darling have defined the character of the world wide rescue effort with other wealthy nations playing catch up.Prof Krugeman is this years winner of the Nobel prize for Economics.
  
  Apologies for the previous error.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Marek am much in harmony with your posts there( in fact thanks for all the great stuff you are doing all over the place here on doverforum, you are helping us all out bigtime). We are truly in stormy waters and in these dark waters we all feel more secure in a safe port. Gordon Brown is that safe port. Many of us felt as Howard says there, that he was a 'right doughnut' only a few short months ago...dangling and dithering and dismal. But his economic knowledge and fatherly worldly features have made us all feel that we've got the right man in charge right now.
  
  Okay as a nation we may have flirted with the Osborne/Cameron combination, but Osborne just isnt a guy you would turn to when the chips are down, and Gawd knows the chips are down right now. Brown has now proved himself once again with his economic prowess, and yes we had our doubts, but glowing reports on TV from Mark Mardell and the like, have rekindled our approval, as he shows both the Eurozone and the US the way forward. It is a staggering accolade as to his dour but dependable skill.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Within 6 months this will forgotten, PaulB, the crisis will be over and we will all be suffering the long slog of a recession. Politics will be back to normal with brown in his bunker. You can see from his recent commments that he is still the 'doughnut' he was a week or so ago. A bit of good publicity cannot change that.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  'We are truly in stormy waters and in these dark waters we all feel more secure in a safe port. Gordon Brown is that safe port. But his economic knowledge and fatherly worldly features have made us all feel that we've got the right man in charge right now.'
  
  Is this some sort of a joke? I know that Erasmus said 'In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king,' but this is ridiculous!
  
  Where can I start? Well lets start by quoting the Great Leader:-
  
  "this problem, which started in America…"
  
  Are we to believe that it was the Americans who deliberately allowed house prices to get wildly out of control, so that people in the UK had an illusion of wealth, resulting in huge mortgage equity withdrawal (or "more debt," to call it what it really is), to finance spending on the high street to keep the "economy" going?
  
  Are we to believe that it was the Americans who kept UK interest rates low, to deliberately drive house prices to astronomical levels in order to support Brown's "miracle economy"?
  
  Are we to believe it was Americans who held a gun to the heads of the bosses at Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, and forced them to offer self-certified "liar loans" of up to 125% on properties, thus, creating the biggest asset bubble in history, and bringing about their downfall and rescue by the taxpayer?
  
  Are we to believe that it was the Americans who put in place tax breaks, to encourage massive speculation in the Buy to Let market, thus making it financially advantageous for investors to drive prices even higher to fuel the false boom?
  
  As for "miracle economy," "no more boom and bust," "ten years of growth" and "sound fundamentals" there is, and never was, a "miracle economy" We now know that the economy in the UK consists of two main elements – the Financial Services sector, which is clearly so inept that the country is now bailing it out with taxpayers money; and the "selling each other overpriced houses" merry-go-round, where home "owners" feel richer while they drag themselves further into debt.
  
  "Ten years of growth" Ten years of homeowners using their home like a cash point, on the back of cynically-manipulated house price inflation, and the "City" pretending they were adding to GDP, while all the time they were really bankrupting themselves through the buying and selling of insanely complicated financial instruments, which it is now apparent they didn't themselves fully understand.
  
  Where is all this money coming from to bail out the banks?
  
  It will either come from increased government, taxpayer, debt, or through printing money - which will crucify the pound and cause rampant inflation.
  
  OK the FTSE is up (marginally) but what the Hell do you expect with the sudden influx of the best part of 50 £ billion into the economy. Has anyone produced any more goods, has value been added to anything, has the balance of payments improved. Of course not. All that has happened is that voodoo economics has triumphed again!
  
  Seriously sell car, buy bicycle and wheelbarrow, stock up with food. You ain't seen nothing yet........
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah relax Bob dont have an apoplexy. How we got to where we are is one thing and perhaps a discussion for another day, but we are here..and the man for the job to get us out is more likely to be Gordon Brown or thats how people feel, as we have seen by the bounce in the opinion polls. Nothing ridiculous about it. If you want to wallow with your wheelbarrow on the road to Armageddon thats one thing but the crises has to be tackled.
  
  We have two options, Browne or George Osborne, and George Osborne does not appear to be the solution. Not for anyone other than the readers of the Daily Mail. A small band, although they are running TV ads so there is yet hope! Osborne does not come across as a safe or experienced pair of hands at the tiller in these dark days...hence the Brown revival.
  
  The reports as written by Marek below and the reports generally on the TV news support the view that Brown is the man for the job...right now!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - The best quote about Gordon Brown's experience was Ken Clarke on Question Time.
  
  I cant remember the exact words, something along the lines of...
  
  Gordon has had the experience of digging the hole we are in, experience all right, digging it deeper, not filling it in.
  
  I dont agree with all that Bob says but he is broadly correct. Brown has a considerable personal responsibility, not for creating the international crisis as such, but for Britains role in that and for leaving us so badly prepared.
  
  It was his changes to the regulatory structure of banks that has made the British circumstances a whole lot worse than if he left things alone. I could go on about his changes to personal finance that has left families unable to cope, the pensions timebomb he has created, the massive bill for the huge levels of public borrowing at a time when it should be at a low level, the inflationary pressures being built up in the economy that will hit in approx 2 years time, due to losing control of the money supply. This latter is a whole lot worse than the present inflation (5.2% today, hopefully peaked for this cycle) which is cause by commodity prices.
  
  He does seem to be loving his crisis, he should make the most of it because this stage wont last long and then we will be into a recession....That will be another matter.
  
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Jeremy vine did a very good interveiw with David cameron on radio 2 at lunch time today afraid he came back with no alternative measures and was not very well recieved by some callers who phoned in to the program
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  The tories have got to work very hard to prove they are worthy of governing, at the moment there are no signs of that.
  Experience has shown through, in fact Brown' strategy is receiving praise from all over the world, including America.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i saw boy dave yesterday being interviewed, he seemed shaken and out of his depth, muttered something about all this borrowing over the last decade by labour causing the crisis.
  
  he seemed to have forgotten that it was american borrowing that brought about the crisis. is he now saying that free market capitalism has got it wrong?
  
  the media in europe are all going on about how our gordon has shown the way and led everyone out of the immediate brown stuff.(not gordon)
  
  the french are depicting him as the leader of europe.
  cometh the hour, cometh the chap.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  'The tories have got to work very hard to prove they are worthy of governing'
  
  Neither of them are proving themselves fit to govern at the present time since neither party dare tell the punters just how bad things are going to get.
  
  Just to get some perspective on the figures two of the more expensive items on any governments expenditure are the Health Service and Defence.
  
  The NHS projected budget is £98Bn for 2007-2008 and the MoD budget £33Bn 2008-2009.
  
  Already the banking system bailout has cost £58Bn for Northern Rock and £50Bn for the others.
  
  According to the Guardian house prices will drop 40% by 2010 leaving millions in negative equity.
  
  Food price inflation is already running at over 6% and will rise further with the pound weakening and the 50% of our food we source from abroad increasing in price accordingly.
  
  Unemployment, which has just seen it's largest monthly rise since 1992 is set to rocket as the recession sets in (in the three months to July 138,000 people were made redundant and that was before the proverbial hit the fan).
  
  One of the few true words spoke by anyone was by Gordon Brown at the recent Labour Party Conference when he said violent crime and theft could rise because of the economic downturn (which reminds me I must get a decent lock for the wheel barrow)
  
  Meanwhile we are supposed to put up with idiots talking of 'strong leadership' etc etc, but then Mussolini was quite popular for a while......
  
  
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I think the events of the last few days have shaken the Tories, Howard, and greatly advanced Browns' reputation in Europe and the United States.
  Politically Cameron and Osborne have beencompletely outclassed.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  dave
  
  just been reading the views from stateside, just the same as our european allies.
  
  bob
  
  why is someone an "idiot" that talks of strong leadership?
  are we not allowed to hold different views to you?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You Labourites can try to whitewash Brown's record all you like, the economic facts speak for themselves.
  
  We are headed, on latest estimates, to Government debt exceeding 53% of GDP. The last time it was at that level Callaghan had to go cap in had to the IMF, how humiliating... The IMF was set up to help third world countries and Callaghan ended up following in the footsteps of Idi Amin (who offered the UK oversea aid at one point!!!)
  
  Thats Labour Governments for you, spend and spend without a care for the consequences. Every single Labour Government has ended with a financial crisis.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry as I've said before I am not a labourite, my vote goes to whom I consider to be the best of the bunch.
  Brown has been faced with a global problem and in dealing with it has gained much respect, not only at home but in most countries.
  According to all the economic pundits inflation is already falling and is expected to fall below 2%.
  The price we pay for it all surely can't beat Thatcher and the three million unemployed, the repossessions and the sky high interest rates.
  Incidentally when it comes to money I do believe DDC & KCC are both tory controlled, they seem to be very quiet about our missing £51 million or do you put this down to 'within hindsight'.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  using phrases like "you labourites" is not a reply just a sign of desperation.
  
  i have made it clear many times that i have no intention of voting for them next time around.
  
  however, you may find that views that come from dave, paul and myself about the PM's leadership during this crisis are fairly common amongst the electorate.
  
  he has secured peoples savings, forcing other governments to do the same.
  as a "toryite" you will realise that is the way to peoples hearts.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  That's quite right Howard, the Tories seem to have come crashing back down to earth.
  Mind you they said IF they get in they will freeze Council Tax for two years i'm really impressed with that, it was such an exciting revelation I fell asleep.
• keith, dover wrote:
  Baz
  Its looking brighter for uncle Gordon, and was my forecast D Cameron under pressure didn't do well as many have said.
  
  Gordon looks a lot more confident, and the people are warming more to him(more importantly they are STILL not trusting the tories)
  
  lookin g forward to the general election
  bring it on
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  keith
  
  how did dover fc do tonight. cannot find the result anywhere.?
  
  dave
  yes, the council tax freeze!!
  so many strings attached, i thought they had brought back the "muppet show".
• Tony, Dover wrote:
  Well if it keeps the fools who keep spouting on about Man-made global warming endlessly quiet I think the odd trillion can be said to be reasonably well spent. I'd happily contribute via direct debit maybe fifty pounds per calender month to keep these lemmings off the front page for once.
  It makes a pleasant change to hear some real news and not the guff dreamed up by the tofu munchers that We're all going to die within five years. Yes bring on the recession, at least that's a real and tangible problem We all have to deal with. When the enemy is a vague pseudo religion which changes its appearance (from global warming to climate change for example) it really is just very wearing on the troops.
  Note that the new government department for energy and climate change has not been matched by an even newer and more urgent portfolio which should be named something along the lines of say "department for Christ how are We gonna dig ourselves out of this financial hole even thought St. Gordon promised us all an end to boom and bust but at least it keeps the sandal wearing hand wringers off the front pages for a few months".
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Howard the main muppet show seems to have mysteriously gone into hibernation but not because of the cold but the heat.
  Even the media seem to have lost interest in them, shame really.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  As I have said, howard, Dave and Keith - enjoy it while you can. With the home made recession and fiscal hangover it will all come crashing down on our heads and Brown will revert to Mr Bean despite the present spin.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  The Shadow Chancellor yesterday in a TV interview conceded that Brown had no alternative and that he had their Full backing in this time of crisis.So lets get lay that ghost that the Tories had some magical cure cos they haven't.
  Secondly he admitted after being pressed that in light of the new global economic crunch that maybe the Tories would have to rethink tax cuts and a council tax freeze.But if they do win the election and decide to implement these policies then the country will be in a worse financial situation than it is at present.
  The fact is that Brown is being hailed around the world as a saviour and the Tories who should be proud that Britain is again leading the world in a time of crisis can do nothing except bitch, snipe and blame Brown for the problem.I don't think any sane man would believe that any single individual has caused this crisis but it has occured due to a combination of circumstances throughout the world.
  For once could we not unite and say that Brown has put the Great back into Britain again.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Lets be clear, though Labour supporters like to pretend otherwise, that I and no Tory has blamed the global crisis on Labour at any time.
  
  Labour are only responsible for how badly this country was prepared to deal with the economic downturn and the consequences of that.
  
  The non-partisan evidence of this comes from the OECD who said that the UK was the worse able to deal with the downturn and the only country in the G7 that will go into recession. Times have moved on from that and due to the credit crunch issues brought about by an over reliance on borrowing more countries are likely to join us. The British recession, however is likely to be longer and bite deeper than elsewhere because of what the OECD reported.
  
  Some time ago on the forum I highlighted a book by left wing journalists called 'Fantasy Island' that foretold this crisis and identified Britain as being kept afloat on a sea of debt. That book accurately described the problems of Labour failing to repay debt during a period of growth and instead borrowing more and encouraging breater personal debt.
  
  Brown is responsible for the fiscal policy of excessive borrrrow and spend that is contributing towards this situation..
  Brown is responsible for changing the regulatory system in 1997 that is at the root of the British Banking problem.
  Brown is responsible for discouraging people to save 'for a rainy day' by reducing the incentives to do so.
  Brown will be making the impact of the recession in the UK worse by forcing the private sector to take all the impact.
  
  Someone mentioned inflation is going to come down, possibly to 2%. Yes, it is, I said that myself in a recent post. Commodity price led inflation is now likely to have peaked and is likely to fall over the next year or so. That is a normal cyclical response to a downturn and the worse a recession gets the lower it will fall. The problem lies with what happens after that as we are likely to see inflation increase driven by domestic factors, in particular the increased money supply.
  
  Can the Labour supporters here please try to raise the standard of debate away from 'Red Top' comments and discuss these issues and stop repeating spin. To just repeat bland statements of belief without a addressing points raised is not a debate and is a worthless exercise. Please try backing up what you say with a little more intelligent analysis.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Mr Brown is off to a European Summit today as I understand it and the radio has made much of him going, as Marek has said, as something of a hero to our European friends. This 'heroic' term was also used on Newsnight last night and it seems in the newspapers. Even the cartoonists, who have long since been having a field day at GB's expense, have now depicted him in heroic mode.
  
  But of course BarryW made the point earlier...this banking crises wont last and will be followed by recession. Then all families will be back to worrying about the loss of jobs and the rising prices. And there will be job losses, no houses being sold, no furniture needed to go in them, no builders needed to fix them, no estate agents needed to flog them, no plumbers required and so on. It wont matter a great deal who is responsible for the problem but it will be aligned in the minds of all that 'the government is to blame'.
  
  Then will come the real political test. Will Gordon be able to keep this rally going then? For the moment though, he has certainly wrestled the initiative away from the suddenly very young and inexperienced looking Tories.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. There is an article in the Times-Online that is a very good read that really sums things up.
  
  Here is an extract by Daniel Finkelstein
  
  “Our view of the Brown decade is like the turkey's view of mankind, utterly destroyed by what has now happened. The stability was a trick of the light, the lengthy period of growth was fuelled by house prices and debt, the low interest rates (of which Brown is still, amazingly, boasting) were an error. The length of the good years is being paid for by the severity of the crisis we now face.....
  
  ....What matters is not whether the bust was avoidable. It is that the preceding boom was illusory.
  
  The idea that boom and bust had been abolished was not a small claim among many. It was the central claim of this Government. It was the boast of boasts - the boast upon which all other boasts were built. And now it has been revealed as totally empty. Not triumph, then. Disaster. Not victory. Total, utter, dreadful defeat.”
  
  ----------------End quote
  
  I also see today that there has been a big surge in unemployment, 1.79m with more to follow.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  I am very careful about any posts I submit to this forum.Most of my arguments are researched to the best of my ability.A lot of info I glean is from the parties own homepages and TV interviews.So I resent the accusation that my postings are not 'backed up' or 'intelligent'.
  
  However I am a hardened northerner so putting that to one side surely if the largest and richest economy in the world ie USA has suffered under this recent crisis and are now following Browns lead (see Daily Politics prog of 14/10) and bearing in mind that the crisis is not yet over surely its ,therefore, too early to ascertain and judge whether our economy is or is not better placed than any of the other leading economies of the world to ride this current problem.
  
  If the economy survives thanks to Browns intervention then history will record that Brown was the right man in the place at the right time to handled the crisis and that despite the critics and so called political experts and commentators (see my previous posting of Andrew Neils comments on the journalists taken from his own blog site) that in fact the UK's economy was indeed healthy enough to ride this storm.
  
  Barry time will tell which one of us is right and for all our sakes I hope its me.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Howard,
  
  'why is someone an "idiot" that talks of strong leadership?'
  
  Because the 'strength' of the leadership is irrelevant if the direction one is being lead is wrong.
  
  One of the Great British Heroes I learnt of as a child was Robert Falcon Scott, a great leader of men, capable of commanding great personal loyalty.
  
  Whilst not thinking for a minute that Brown is a man of anywhere near Scott's stature, nevertheless I suspect that following Brown, like Scott, will lead to an early demise from cold and hunger whilst huddled in a tent!
  
  (Any truth in the rumour that Cabanon are doing Buy to Let???)
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Actually Marek my comments were not so much about you because you do put some meat in your posts, agree or disagree. I cant say the same about some others.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Yes Barry I think that remark was a little ill-thought.
  It is millions of people like me that political parties will be falling over in an endeavour to secure their vote. Not being a studier of politics does not prevent me from voicing an opinion. I am not a person that thinks one particular party is right whilst the other is always wrong and find it somewhat sad that some do. I judge things upon their merit at the time, hence the rason why I think at the moment Brown is the best man for the job.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, this is all about expressing views and that is great but in doing so, all I am saying is back it up so we can have a proper exchange.
  
  I did a very detailed post in respect of the Icelandic Banks situation, you followed up with a repeat of what you said previously without really addressing or challenging the points I made.
  
  It actually looked as if you did not read what I said. To just assert as you did that someone should be a scapegoat without all relevant facts to justify it, is simply not a good debating point. I have given reasons why that should not be the case, you just asserted your view with out challenging my reasoning. You even claimed I was speaking in that context politically, I was not and made a point not to.
  
  You cannot debate an issue without engaging in the background and context.
  
  Take Gordon Brown, to get back to politics. You believe he is the best man for the job but in doing so you have not challenged the economic factors that I suggest have left this country in a much worse position that it need be.
  
  Lets just look at some of the warnings Brown has had for a moment.
  
  1) Dec 2003 IMF gives Brown borrowing warning
  2) Sep 2005 IMF report warning over £1 trillion mountain of debt, Brown besieged over growth and borrowing plans
  3) Dec 2005 IMF fires new warning over Britain's finances
  4) Sep 2006 IMF warns over possible UK property crash
  5) Oct 2007 IMF report UK house market is 'heading for crash'
  6) Apr 2008 IMF: UK vulnerable to US-style housing slump
  
  The Tory Griffiths Commission set up by Oliver Letwin reported in 2005: "The sheer scale of consumer debt has made millions of households extremely vulnerable to shocks ... Credit is far too available."
  
  In December 2005 the Bank warned: "UK and international institutions have increased their exposures to potentially illiquid assets ... A rapid unwind of these positions in the event of losses would tend to depress prices by more than has been the case in the past."
  
  That is just a start. I did not include the OECD, the EU. the LibDems, and a lot more Conservative warnings in the list.
  
  Brown was warned, he ignored it and persisted in claiming an end to boom and bust.
  
  With that background how can you claim confidence in Gordon Brown when he has so clearly failed in the past? Lets debate this properly rather than exchange red top headlines, that is the point I am making.
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  If we take out the US mortgage situation would we be in the same economic mire as we are today, possibly not. The added element to 'you cant buck the market/ there is no such thing as society' credo was greed. I think we need to look at the wider causes and that's why the BBC's Robert Peston described the part-nationalisation of UK banks this week as the end of Thatcherism.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Now what did I write yesterday? 'OK the FTSE is up (marginally) but what the Hell do you expect with the sudden influx of the best part of 50 £ billion into the economy. Has anyone produced any more goods, has value been added to anything, has the balance of payments improved. Of course not. All that has happened is that voodoo economics has triumphed again!'
  
  As of 14.30 today FTSE down over 4%. (Sorry to give forumites any sort of reality check!).
  
  Also down Dax, Cac 40, Dow Jones, Nasdaq, BBC Global 30. Looks like the dead cat has lost it its elasticity and this is after a global injection of £2,000,000,000,000! Doh!
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Its good to have postings at all skill levels BarryW as sometimes the simplest one from the heart can be more telling than a long complex one. The individual voice is what counts. It doesnt matter if it isnt backed up with reams of quotes and so forth. One can always find quotes to back up an argument but its not really required. The guy in Tower Hamlets or Bucklands is what we want to know about.
  
  If we respect what each other is trying to say then thats the best thing.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Thankyou Paul, that is the very point I was trying to make. If political comment means tat you have to quote reams of statistics then I shan't post anymore.
  I consider my opinions to be more in keeping with the average person in the street, such opinions will be very important at the next General Election.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You have actually made a good point about the general public there Dave.
  
  If the voting public had taken more interest in what was behind the headlines and looked at what was building up in the real economy they would never have re-elected Labour in 2005 and maybe not even in 2001.
  
  It is a sad fact and a weakness in our democracy, that leads to greater economic instability, in that instead of Governments being held to account in a timely manner, we have to wait until the economy is ruined before the public catch on.
  
  It is sad that many of those who engage in debate cannot justify and reason, though good advocacy, the views they express. That is all I am asking for, that is the real way to respect others people's opinions. To just ignore reasoned argument, without offering a counter point, and repeating what was said before, simply does not cut the mustard.
  
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  'If we respect what each other is trying to say then thats the best thing.'
  
  Rubbish. Most people and their views are not worthy of respect. They neither have adequate information to have an informed opinion on very much other than what happened on TV last night or how 'their' team is doing, nor indeed the intelligence to process the information.
  
  Looking at 'knife crime', again and again the reason given by the perpretator is that the victim 'dis-respected' him.
  
  That's where calls for 'respect' get you.
  
  I'm sticking with tolerance.
  
  
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Bob I dont want any more postings like that. Its not in the spirit of what we are trying to do here. I was about to delete that but I will leave it to make the point..its not whats required.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I think Bob is entitled to his views no matter however ignorant they may be.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Yes Dave its true that Bob is entitled to his views but not necessarily entitled to express them on here.
  
  I am interested in polite responsible letters on here, much the same way as a newspaper is. If the letters/posts are not like that then we cant use them.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Whilst I have always supported Baz)(and others)right to post, his comments on 15th oct 0807 give the impression that only baz knows wot is right, which is far from the truth.
  
  I just hope that rather than switch people off politics and voting that our BAZ will try to remember that others to have a view.
  
  hopefully he will take this on board
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Actually Keith I am not sure you quite understadn what I am saying.
  
  It is actually the opposite to what you infer. I am asking for more debate of a higher quality and to get away from a tabloid 'red top' style and to instead try to address the issues people raise and for more advocacy of your views.
  
  If you want to respect someone else's opinion you discuss it seriously, not ignore it and make a bland contrary statement without offering a real counter argument.
• Steven, Folkestone wrote:
  Blimey this topic is raising hackles on both sides of the political fence. I must say that you people remind me of hens caught up in a hedge. I concur with one of you previous posters who talked about global warming. Now that both the Tories and Labour are signing us all up to reduce our carbon footprint by 80% by the middle of this century, well, We might as well pack up now and emigrate. This Country is now doomed and it's all been brought on by the Idiots in charge in Westminister. I am a traditional Conservative voter but now that my party has signed up to this ridiculous notion I shall not be voting for them. What a shame to see a once great Political party reduced to falling for the Worlds biggest cons.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Here's some food for thought Steve as you drink your cuppa of char tonight
  
  The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in cars or coal in a power plant generating electricity.
  
  Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years. Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. See other thread on cows breaking wind.
  
  The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.
  
  The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons.
  
  And if that is not enough the glacier that Hillary and Tensing climbed on their way to the Everest peak has retreated some 3 miles up the mountain and the pair would now have to walk a further 2 hours from their base camp to encounter it.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  In order to be fair I have constructed an argument against global warming.I suppose the answer is you pay your money you take your choice.
  
  Not everyone agrees that climate change is a threat to our future – some experts think we’ve got it all completely wrong because the climate system is very complex, so predicting climate change is like rolling dozens of dice: you can’t be sure what your final result will be because there are so many possible results.
  
  These sceptics do not consider for example that climate prediction is a mature science. The sceptics argue that climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the development of computers and that data from previous centuries is unreliable.
  
  While most experts agree that weather patterns must be studied for many years to get an idea of what a "normal" climate is, some scientists have argued that the current climate changes we are experiencing might actually be part of our "normal" climate. They argue that although the global surface temperature has risen in the last 200 years, it is still very low compared to the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.
  
  In addition, many parts of the climate system are unpredictable, so no one can be sure how it will change our future. While global warming might cause the sea level to rise, this situation will also create more water to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with and so global warming is further reduced.
  
  Furthermore, weather balloon and satellite readings show that the lower troposphere, the layer of Earth's atmosphere most at risk from global warming isn't warming and therefore the climate model predicting the effects of global warming is wrong.
  
  Sceptics also argue that while environmentalists are very keen to show photographs of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940 and there are several reputable scientific studies that have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding.
  
  I suppose the truth will out in time but regardless of whether the earth is on a course for self destruct or not surely no-one can argue against the need to reduce poisonous greenhouse gasses
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  marek
  having read both of your posts there, a fair precis would be that you believe methane is the main problem.
  
  not being a scientific type i have to take your assertions that vehicle emissions, cows(animal kind) and the burning of fossil fuels are to blame.
  
  would any goverment take action on such things?
• Steven, Folkestone wrote:
  Well Marek if you really believe that a trace gas which comprises of 0.03% of the atmosphere and only a miniscule part of that is Man-made then there is no changing your mind. The planet warms up and then cools down. But unfortunately the more gullible believe those in power and those who want to fleece them and let these "experts" con them into believing the nonsense. What is really worrying is that Obama has announced that if he gets elected He will declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The man is mad. But, unfortunately, he joins a long line of weirdos such as David Cameron, Gordon Brown and the leader of the pointless party whose name I forget as he really is, well pointless, in spreading the holy gospel of Man-made global warming.
  God help us all.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  A good couple of postings there Marek - obviously well researched.
  
  Scientists have shown that we have had at least 8 ice ages and global warmings , the last one separated us from mainland Europe, so they can't all be bad.
  
  It seems to me that this is the only global warming that we can measure, because we have the science to do so and the fact that we have been burning fossil fuels in great amounts for the last 2 to 3 hundred years.
  
  The use of coal is fossil-fuel burning (at least up to very recently), which adds to the problem, so closing the coal mines wasn't such a bad idea then ? (lack of retraining the miners was the big problem.)
  
  There is also the addition to carbon dioxide through the vast tracks of land in South America and other areas of course, where hundreds of thousands of square miles of trees are being chopped down.
  
  Green taxes - high green taxes, won't make any difference to global warming or reducing emissions, it'll just be another exercise in raising taxes for the government(s), from the already over-burdened tax-payer, including of course the motorist.
  
  I agree that new forms of energy for heating, running cars, planes etc. etc. should be found; they were found decades ago, but squashed by the oil companies.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The general consensus of world scientific thinking seems to confirm that global warming is taking place, but as has been said earlier not everyone agrees. We are in danger here in the UK of getting almost phobic about being green, its almost like a new fundamentalism.
  
  In an effort to be at the forefront of world action, government minister Ed Milliband announced yesterday that we have a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. ..and this to be backed by law. This seems swingeing and I feel it could hamstring us all going about our daily business. Why do we have to be seen as the worlds goody goodies?
  
  I agree that a certain reduction is needed as we do have to keep an eye on the planet in case the scientists are right, but if the US and China pay no heed to reduction, then our austere stride forward will be pointless. It needs to be tackled in the same way as the financial crises...on a global basis, by global agreement.
  
  Incidently Shipping and Airtravel are exempt from the targets. They ought though to take a look at the new and lovely Moliere...it doesnt half chuck out the worst black muck when starting up. I hate to say anything negative about the Moliere but...what can you do! A certain sensible reduction with this kind of problem is certainly needed but hark..please gimme a break from the one toilet sheet per person syndrome!
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Roger, global temperature and C02 levels can be measured back to 800,000 years or so via examination of extracted Antarctic ice cores, not 200-300 years as you speculate. The cores demonstrate an unparalleled increase in C02 in the last few years well outside the natural range. I'm sure no-one can doubt that the climate has indeed been in flux, as it has always been so, but it is the specific motor of the recent sudden rate of change that is the cause for concern and debate.
• Guest 644 wrote:
  Sorry Roger, looking at your post again I did slightly misread it. Unfortunately there is no edit facility!
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  'Cameron rachets up the rhetoric, doesn't say what he'd have done differently and doesn't offer any alternative with his eye on the opinion polls' would have been my headline. WalesOnline came up with one better though: 'Cameron hits the panic button as Brown soars'. Probably not what he was hoping for. Mind you with the speculation that George Osborne, he's the Shadow Chancellor, is taking flak for being too anonymous perhaps he is showing good political timing picking now to panic.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  ComRes have a poll that reduces the Coinservative lead to a 'mere' 9%. That must be a big disappointment for Labour after such a mass of good publicity for Brown. This will truly turn out to be a dead cat bounce.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  you must be concerned enough to post that barry.
  
  2 questions
  
  a) what is a dead cat bounce?
  b) are the central office denizens in a panic?
  
  boy dave seems to have aged a decade over the last week.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Howard,
  
  A dead cat bounce is a term used by traders in the finance industry to describe a pattern wherein a spectacular decline in the price of a stock is immediately followed by a moderate and temporary rise before resuming its downward movement, with the connotation that the rise was not an indication of improving circumstances in the fundamentals of the stock. It is derived from the notion that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height". (Wiki)
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Thank you for that Bob, quite right.
  
  I see the News of the World use this very term this morning in respect of their ICM poll. I would say 'great minds' if was not the NotW!!!!!!!!!!
  
  Howard, I have no idea what is happening at Central office. Sure some journalists might like to take up on Labour spin but if there is panick at the moment then it will be in Labour HQ.
  
  Given the level of undeserved good publicity Brown has had on the back of the crisis, he should have done better than is now demonstrated in two polls.
  
  The truth is he has shown yet again that he cannot quite grasp how the real world of how the markets work otherwise he would not have said what he did over dividends. He immediately devalued his re-capitisation and snuffed out any confidence that may have returned to the banks. I hope common sense will return and he will do away with his prejudices. I have said many times how incompetent he is and these recent events simply prove it. I suspect he may have to back track.
  
  This immediate crisis will be giving way to a deep recession and that cannot be avoided, in fact though the official figures will not yet show it I am sure that when they are released we will find we are already in a recession.
  
  As was pointed out on Question Time on Thursday, very simply. A country well prepared to face a recession would be last in and first out, instead we are first in and will likely be last out. That is the sad truth of the incompetence of the Brown years, he has left us in a far worse state than other major western indistrialised countries.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  howard -there uis a third poll that also backs up what I say.
  
  Taken from conservativehome.com, I quote:
  
  """"A BPIX poll for the Mail on Sunday: "When voters are asked who they would vote for in an emergency General Election on the economy, Mr Cameron scores 45 per cent, with Labour only six points behind on 39. But when the economic crisis is removed from the question and voters concentrate on wider issues, the picture changes dramatically. The Tory rating rises to 46 while Labour slumps to 30, 16 points behind, with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats on a lowly 13.""""""
  
  This is even more worrying for Labour. The crisis will end as I have said and a grinding recession will take over....................
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Barry polls are fine but only count when there is an election,it is like house prices falling it don't make a jote of differance to most people as they will rise again,the only time it make a diiference is when you want to sell your house.
  The only time the polls count is when there is an election,and I am sure that a couple of months ago you probably wished we had an election,we didn't,and now Gordon has come into his own and his ratings have gone up,like any good leader it is in crisis where they show thier leadership qualities,and he will continue to show them while the Tories can't make up thier minds if they support the policy or not,once again positive action by Labour, willy-niilly I can say anything that sounds good by the Tories.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  bob
  thanks for info, i tried it with my live cat, she did not bounce and even scratched me for my troubles.
  
  barry
  the recession presently planned will not last that long according to most pundits.
  that doom and gloom organ "the sunday express" predicted a year, in this morning's edition.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Somebody once said "that anyone can lead a country when the going is good but it takes a truly great man to lead a country when the going gets tough". Hence Gordon is, at present, the man for today.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  I couldn't find the original quote for my other quote but found the following
  
  Great necessities call forth great leaders.
  
  Abigail Adams (1744 - 1818)
  
  Very few of the great leaders ever get through their careers without failing, sometimes dramatically.
  
  Philip Crosby
  
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Howard
  
  'thanks for info, i tried it with my live cat, she did not bounce and even scratched me for my troubles.'
  
  Naah. Different with live cats. The fastest a cat can fall (once it is the right way up) is about 60mph as terminal velocity. You and I have a terminal velocity of about 120mph.
  
  Cats, when dropped, use angular momentum to twist themselves into a position where they are the 'right way up' so that they might break legs (injured) but not break internal organs (dead).
  
  Cats dropped from above 7 floors tend to survive in most cases whereas those dropped from lower down spend too much time registering the shock of being dropped to twist the 'right way up'.
  
  An interesting experiment would be to strap buttered toast (which tends to land butter side down) onto the back of a cat (which tends to land on its feet) and see which way up the bundle lands????????
  
  Perhaps this is where Schroedinger got the idea from.........
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  interesting thoughts there bob.
  
  maybe we could strap a slice of buttered toast to our prospective blue parliamentary candidate.
  
  he is very much like my moggy, only appears when there is some advantage to be gained.
• Sian , Eastry wrote:
  Howard I have no idea how you could say that last comment with any conviction. You really should take a closer look at the current MP who IMHO only rears his head if there is a photo opportunity in the offing.
  He is so out of date with reality it borders on comical. He has been invited to at least 2 events in Dover every year since 2004, and never yet has he shown his face at either.
  
  I rest my case
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are so right Sian, I have heard this on more than one occasion. If you are one of his supporters then he would usuall attend your event, otherwise he is not really interested.
  
  Charlie Elphicke takes an active interest in everything that is going on as any candidate and MP should do in their constituency. Not everything he gets involved in involves publicity either, he has been helping people and organisations with no fanfare at all.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  It's very difficult for anyone to comment without knowing Gwyns full commitments and movements to the H of C, his constituents and of course his family.
  
  I agree Charlie,the young pretender,is putting 'it' about quite a bit and he has to.If forumites can recall when he was selected as the Conservative PPC very few of us had ever heard about him previously.
  
• Bob Frost, D wrote:
  Marek,
  
  'It's very difficult for anyone to comment without knowing Gwyns full commitments and movements to the H of C'
  
  Always happy to help.
  
  Gwyn will be having from Dec 18 to Jan 12 off (24 days) as will all our other hard working M.P.s.
  
  They also have a 17-day Easter break, 10 days for Whitsun and 82 days - or 11 weeks and five days – for summer.
  
  In total, Parliament is not expected to sit on more than 150 days in the coming year, equal to just 30 working weeks.
  
  Nice work if you can get it I would suggest, and plenty of time to do their bit as Remunerated Directors of various firms which so many of them (but not Glynn) find time to do as well as their 'full time' job!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i always think about MP's as i do teachers.
  
  both have long holidays.
  
  i do not personally know any MP's, but i would imagine that they are the same mix as teachers.
  
  some just do the hours set down, whilst others use "the time off" to do things in their job that they would not normally have time to do.
  
  just one example, a science teacher i used to live next door to, spent his christmas holiday with colleagues refurbishing the chemistry lab.
  he just took dec 25/26 off, similarly i have known others to spend all evening on marking.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Howard,
  
  ...........and others waste their evening on the Internet?
  
  Best wishes
  
  A Teacher
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  please tell me that you are not a teacher bob!!
  
  
  please please please
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Howard,
  
  Yup! But I don't think that it necessarily makes me a bad person?
  
  :-)
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The Conservative suggestion the other day about the possibility of deferring vat to help smaller businesses through the current crises is an interesting one but Im not at all sure if it's helpful. We had a smallish business in London for donkeys years and one of the harder bills to meet was the vat..and the vat people dont take any prisoners and will not tolerate any kind of late payment whatsover. Fairly ruthless in their pursuit of revenue one might say.
  
  A small business deferring June's payment of say £8,000 will be met with a crippling £16,000 in december. I take it thats what the Tories are suggesting. It might actually be better to meet the smaller payments as the larger one might not be do-able for many and they could go to the wall on account of it. Live now, pay later, is the suggestion...but unfortunately many will not be able to pay that larger sum later.
  
  The general idea is good but the only real way to help would be to abolish vat entirely for a period( perhaps a year sez he optimistically!) but of course pigs might fly.
  
  This of course amid the backdrop of some of our larger companies who dont pay corporation tax at all, says a report today..presumably clever lawyers can render them exempt.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB I can speak with direct experience of more than one business and how they cope.
  
  The sad fact is that all small businesses are undercapitalised and tend to run hand to mouth. What they need above all in these difficult days is flexibility and for customers to pay their bills promptly.
  
  Yes, the VAT has to be paid but the flexibility of deferring may save some from going completely under, due to a late payer perhaps or an unexpected bad debt. Time and breathing space can be crucial and these days the banks are not necessarily going to be your best friend.
  
  There is one business I know quite well who's biggest customer has switched its payments to head offfice instead of doing it locally. From paying in 20 days they now wait 90 days. This is crippling for the business and if they were able to defer their VAT bill for up to 6 months then it would provide them the felxibility they need. He is coming to see me soon to see whether and how we can win him the flexibility he needs to survive until his bill gets paid.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Coming back to PaulB's lead above about the opinion polls and the narrowing of the Conservative lead there is an interesting piece abouth this by polling expert Stephan Shakespear of YouGov that I found via conhome...
  
  """"""""""""When people get frightened – and the past few weeks have been frightening for everyone – there’s obviously going to be a sense of relief when it looks as if disaster has been averted. And there will be some feeling of respect for the man who took the lead. To be fair, anything less would be churlish: Brown was at his best in this crucial period. True, he himself had contributed substantially to the problem in the first place; true, his fix may yet cost us more than anyone bargained for. But we shouldn’t be surprised if swing voters, those least entrenched in their politics, are likely to give him a little extra benefit of doubt.
  
  I could imagine that if the general election were to be held while people were still feeling in crisis mode, and still seeing Brown as the man best placed to solve it, then maybe he could just about cling on with a hung parliament. Then David Cameron would have to wait a few months more. Much more likely is what usually happens after disaster: the voters will throw out the government that presided over it, and with some firmness.
  
  Throwing out a government that has failed them is what voters do best. Voters have a very low expectation of government, and very high tolerance; so long as things are not totally messed up, they give them another chance. Better the devil you know, and all that. But a crisis followed by a recession? That would be unusual.
  
  They don’t much like Brown, even if he isn’t quite the boobie that he recently seemed. I don’t think they’re especially fond of David Cameron either – why should they be, he’s a politician? But Labour have had a long time in government and it’s ending badly, while the Conservatives look a lot better than they used to. Unless they make some dreadful blunder, the Conservatives will be the next government."""""""""""""""
  
  Sorry to rain on your parade PaulB/Keith/JHG et al - (no, not really!!!!)
  
  
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Did Osborne badger the rich russian for fifty thousand pounds worth of roubles to rustle into the conservative coffers when on his yacht this summer? Osbourne says Niet! but watch this space.I believe this story may grow.
  
  Who said sleazeski was dead and gone?.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  After posting my snippet I found this article:
  
  George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, met Oleg Deripaska on his yacht this summer. It was alleged there was discussion of a possible £50,000 donation to the Tory party. According to the latest allegations Mr Osborne and Andrew Feldman, chief executive of the Tory party, spent time on the billionaire's Queen K yacht in Corfu.
  
  The two men reportedly sought to "solicit a donation" and discussed with Mr Deripaska how he could make a contribution to the party's coffers. Mr Feldman suggested that Mr Deripaska might channel the money through one of his British companies, according to the claims made in a letter by Nathaniel Rothschild, a friend of both Mr Osborne and Lord Mandelson.
  
  Under legislation passed in 2008 donations by overseas residents are illegal, as is using a British firm to disguise foreign donations. The claim was strenuously denied by the Conservatives.
  The claims were made to The Times by Mr Rothschild, who has been a friend of David Cameron, the Tory leader, since their days at Oxford. He has also been involved in fundraising for the party.
  
  Earlier this year a High Court judge noted that Mr Deripaska is currently banned from entering the US after his visa was revoked, reportedly because of concerns that he had ties to organised crime in Russia.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek - it has indeed been denied quite emphatically.
  
  What you quoted though did not also point out that Mandelson was also there....
  
  There is more I suspect behind the scenes than is being made apparent. Perhaps the presence of the 'Prince of Darkness' might be a bit more telling....
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Well spotted Barry. The Prince of Darkness one of my least favourite politicians was indeed present.Surely nobody would fabricate such a story..!!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  not necesssarily fabricated but a story misconstrued and taken out of context.
  
  The following from the BBC that perhaps places it into the correct context:
  
  """""""""""In a conversation on September 18, Mr Rothschild suggested to Andrew Feldman that Mr Deripaska wanted to make a donation to the party through one of his British companies."
  
  The statement added: "The offer was not taken up. For clarity - the Conservative Party has neither sought or received any donations from Mr Deripaska nor any of his companies."
  
  BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson has learnt that the subject of a donation from Mr Deripaska was raised during a discussion Mr Osborne had with Mr Rothschild at his villa before the shadow chancellor visited the billionaire on his yacht. """""""""""""
  
  Nothing wrong with two people discussing such a donation as long as the outcome was no approach and no acceptance of money should be made.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  On the subject of Deripaska, in the words of the excellent Ken Kesey 'watch the doughnut, not the hole'.
  
  Compared to PSBR, recession, unemployment, PFI etc etc the yawnworthiness of this is extreme.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  3 points here.
  
  a) 50 grand is small beer to a political party today.
  b) the rule on foreign donations is ludicrous, it is hardly rocket science to move money around and disguise where it originally came from.
  c) why do our politicians go out of their way to get into potentially damaging situations? yet again, the man was on holiday, why does he not simply knot a hankie around his head and build sand castles?
  Blair started all this with his freebies with the worlds richest people.
  
  inevitably the politicians are invited in order to gain something from them.
  it must be much easier to go on holiday with the people they did before they became famous.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Plus, as a one who owns a yacht, I would not want the likes of either Mandelson or Osborne on board!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  come on bob, be fair, who would sort out your bilge pumps?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Agreed about Mandelson Bob but Osborne is actually a nice enough bloke.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  Barry,
  
  Nice bloke maybe but it's just not going to work. Imagine, a lovely sail over to Boulogne sorting out the UK economy, a couple of beers in the Yacht Club, a decent meal with a good bottle of wine in Hamiots and then it happens.
  
  George says 'I don't suppose you fancy giving £50,000 to the Conservative Party?'
  
  He wakes up with a hang-over embarrassed that he asked the question.
  
  I end up looking a complete cheapskate..............
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Bob - very funny but there is one problems about your analogy, it is clear that a donation was suggested by Rothschild to Feldman and Osborne did not ask for one.
  
  The whole thing can be likened to this old one...
  
  Bob, (asks a journalist), is it rue that you kicked a dog on Dover seafront last Saturday?
  You reply: No it is untrue
  Headline in the paper: Bob denies kicking the dog....
  
  It really is the oldest trick in the book to cast aspertions.
  
  This affair really does show the very worse side of politics and political game playing. The reasons for this happening are also very clear to me and I will explain that later but first the events themselves:
  
  I read George Osborne's detailed statement and the Rothschild response. The difference is remarkable in that Osborne was clear and unambiigious while Rothschild's was less so and did not deny vital points made in the Osborne statement and merely implied wrongdoing.
  
  Rothschild suggested to Feldman (not Osborne) that a donation may be made by Denispaska. (Not denied by Rothschild)
  
  Feldman explained the circumstances in which a donation can be made legally (not denied by Rothschild) in the same discussion.
  
  Rothschild told Feldman that a donation could be made via a UK company, Leyland Daf, owned by Derispaska. Feldman said it may not be appropriate but would get advice, the conclusion was that it would not indeed be appropriate and no donation was made. (None of this denied by Rothschild.
  
  Rothschild's statement was wooly in saying the matter was discussed (clearly true). Osborne was present 'when these things were discussed', something he does not deny.
  
  The simple fact is no donation was sought by Osborne, as has been suggested, and no donation was made therefore no crime or impropiety was made. The case should therefore be closed...
  
  Bob - You can never believe anything that has Mandelson's greasy fingerprints all over it. Mandelson was present at most of these meetings.
  
  So why has this cropped up?
  
  Rothschild is after all a Conservative supporter.
  
  There is a small element that has been trying to undemine Osborne recently in the Party. They have been 'bigging up' John Redwood (with good reason) and seem to want to replace Osborne with him. redwood himself certainly does not seem to be involved and it is not his style, in fact he issued a statement supportive of George O.
  
  Labour also have their reasons to want to get rid of Osborne. He is a key person behind Cameron and some reports say they are desperate to get rid of him.
  
  So it seems to me that this is a trap laid by a unholy alliance between Mandelson and Rothschild. The evidence is that it is clear that Rothschild made all the running right from the first and Mandelson was present throughout. This is fairly typical of the kind of tricks that are right up Mandelson's sleeve.
  
  It must have been a great disappointment to them that The Conservartive Party decided a donation would be wrong but they decided to make the most of what they have and to smeer Osborne through implication.
  
  This really is polictics at its dirtiest low and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. These 'alleged' conspirators should not be able to get away with it.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah now BarryW..you might be giving us a bit of the ould rose coloured blue rinsed whitewash there! After all you cant know for certain your version is the accurate version.Young George was in bed with sharks and the sharks have smelled blood and gone for him....and these are his own friends, so he must be held in very lowwww estimation.What price his enemies?
  
  Its true it has all the appearance of an ambush, but didnt the boy George spill the beans and break confidences to the Daily Mail, that true organ of balance, about Lord Mandelson. You remember Im sure the one about 'poisonous anti Gordon Brown bile from the lips of Mandelson'.
  
  If you are going to reveal confidences about the goings on at these Rich Club gatherings then you may expect some serious retaliation. Now we are seeing it.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Indeed PaulB - Osborne did indeed reveal some things said by Mandelson about Brown and it does indeed seem that Mandelson has contrived a way to get revenge.
  
  Very convenient indeed it is for Mandelson because the media were starting to ask stories about him, his relationship with this Russian and an EU trade deal when he was Trade Commissioner that benefits his Russian friend to the tune of £200m.
  
  It is very murky and Mandelson's friend, Rothschild, seems to have 3 versions of his story.
  
  It is difficult for anyone in public life at such a high level. They should not be monks, isolated from the public, but any socialising can be opened up to mis-interpretation.
  
  Perhaps Osborne should not have visited the boat, perhaps he should have refused an offer to stay at Rothschilds villa (someone he has known since school), perhaps he should have avoided mixing with Mandelson. It is all very well in hindsight but any of us, if we walked in such circiles, could very innocently be compromised.
  
  Ultimately though no laws were broken and the evidence stacks up in Osborne's favour on the key issue. Labour, Mandelson and his friends will try to keep spinning this though their way attemtping to damn Osborne by association. It keeps our attention away from much more serious issues...
  
  And, what about Mandelson, the Russian and the Trade deal... that might be a much more substantive matter that deserves attention.
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  The main focus of attention seems to be centred upon Osbornes' judgment which has shown itself to be severely flawed. Rather than having nothing to do with the w hole issue from the start, he invited Feldman on the yacht. If he, as claims, completely innocent then why bring in Feldman.
  It should also be remembered and you seem to have forgotten this Barry is that it was Osborne who leaked certain conversations he had heard from Mandelson, he was the instigator of all this and now it has come back to smack him in the face. Mandelson isn't making any comment at all, which is a clever move as his very silence is in effect fuelling the fire.
  This story is not going to go away for a while yet which does the Tories no good at all, not only has their shadow chancellor no credible solution to the present global crisis but his whole judgment is increasingly coming under pressure. In the light of this I would not have thought for one minute that Labour would want rid of him, he is more of an asset to them than a liability.
  This really is the politics of the gutter but there will be plenty of journalists raking around in the muck seeing what else they may find.
  Osborne has only himself to blame he should have known better than betray private conversation, especially about the highly experienced, devious Mandelson.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave.
  
  Your post must have crossed with mine and indeed perhaps Osborne would have been wise not to reveal what poisonous Mandelson said and this is almost certainly his revenge as well as obscuring a little matter of his own activities. Perhaps Osborne felt he had nothing to worry about because he was not actually guilty of anything....
  
  It is so very easy for any of us to be compromised.
  
  A few years ago I went to New York with Alison and her dad and stayed with a friend of ours in New Jersey. He was at the time a top NY attourney dealing in financial matters and an adviser to the US Treasury. We were there for Thanksgiving and our host said we were all invited to the home of a friend of his for the celebrations.
  
  We went along to what was a quite modest suburban home and met our host for the day. He was a cheery and hospitable Italian American and a lot of his family were there. We were made very welcome, had a great meal, great conversation on politics/finance and much less weighty matters. We got along really well with them, details exchanged and offers to stay/visit etc. It really was a great relaxed enjoyable day with some really nice people.
  
  On the way back to our friends home he told us that our host was the black sheep of his family who did not go into the family business. That business was the Mafia. The really nice gentle old lady I say next to was the wife of a now deceased 'godfather' and one or two others there were still involved in the family business.
  
  Imagine what could be misconstrued from that if someone wanted to cause mischief! I wonder to this day if the cheery chappie I invited to come and stay with us and see England was one of those still in the family business. I may never know and certainly wont dare ask if I get that phone call!!!
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Yes I know what you mean Barry, a few years ago, through my innocent associations with a certain section of our society I was judged guilty by innuendo and Chinese whispers and speaking from experience it is most unpleasant and was at the time particularl hurtful to my family.
  However the circumstances of the issue relating to Osborne are somewhat different. His very gut feeling should have told him, especially with Mandelson present, that he was potentially opening a can of worms. It is not so much the allegations that are under scrutiny but the judgment in allowing himself to become involved. He should have said 'sorry, I am not here to discuss party funding and do not wish to pursue the conversation further but he didn't he went a stage further and took Feldman on to the yacht. For what purpose?
  I do have some sympathy for Osborne but at the very least he was naive, I believe his days are numbered and that eventually he will be forced to resign.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Should someone who is essentially innocent of the charge made against him resign or be forced out through malicious intent generating suspicion or innuendo. No, of course not, it goes against natural justice. The whole point is that no law was broken. You could have a valid argument over judgement but really it is very diffficult after all he was mixing with someone who he knew at school and was part of his wider social circle. Perhaps he should not have revealed the conversation of such a venal character as Mandelson, but that is no more than has gone on in politics time immemorial.
  
  As for the invite to Feldman. You made a point except there is a much more mundane explanation of this. I provide here the part of Osborne's statement that deal with the involvement of Feldman. It is important to note that in his later statement Rothschild did not challenge this account...
  
  """"""""The next day - August 24 - Mr Osborne, who had been staying in a rented house but was now staying at the Rothschild villa with his family, mentioned to Mr Rothschild that Andrew Feldman – who Mr Rothschild had met once before - was holidaying half an hour away with his family and friends.
  
  Mr Rothschild then invited Mr Feldman to join them for an early evening drink at the villa.
  
  This was a social invitation and at no point previously had Mr Osborne and Mr Rothschild discussed the possibility of a donation to the Conservative Party from Mr Deripaska.
  
  Mr Feldman, Mr Osborne, Mr Rothschild and two other house guests gathered on the villa terrace.
  
  There was a discussion about British and American politics and in the course of which Mr Rothschild suggested to Mr Feldman that his friend, Mr Deripaska could be interested in making a party donation. Mr Feldman had not met Mr Deripaska previously and was not aware who he was.
  
  Mr Feldman made clear that there are very strict rules on donations to political parties in the UK.
  
  He explained that there are only two ways of giving a political donation. Firstly, if you appear as an individual on the UK electoral roll. Secondly, if the donation comes from a legitimate UK trading company.
  
  This is an explanation Mr Feldman gives regularly when asked about donations both privately and publicly. At this point Mr Rothschild said that Mr Deripaska owned UK trading companies including Leyland Daf. There was no discussion about how a donation by Mr Deripaska could be concealed or channelled.
  
  At no point did Mr Osborne or Mr Feldman solicit or ask for a donation, suggest ways of channelling a donation or express any wish to meet with Mr Deripaska to discuss donations.
  
  The conversation moved on to the US elections. Some time later Mr Rothschild – having phoned Mr Deripaska – invited Mr Osborne, Mr Feldman and one other house guest for a further drink on Mr Deripaska’s yacht which was moored nearby.
  
  Mr Osborne and Mr Feldman agreed to meet with Mr Deripaska and his wife and family.
  
  They stayed on the boat for about an hour and drank tea. There was a discussion about British and Russian politics, education and Russian history. There was no conversation or mention of party funding or the possibility of Mr Deripaska making a donation to the Conservative Party.
  
  After the group left the boat Mr Feldman did not see Mr Deripaska or Mr Rothschild again and had no further conversations with Mr Deripaska.""""""""""""
  
  Feldmans further involvement was relating to a phone call from rothschild over a possible donation on which Feldman consulted and it was decided it would be inappropriate. Perfectly properly.
  
  As you can see nothing wrong was done at all unless someone for their own ends want to spin it and misrepresent it.
  
  This is increasingly merky because Rothschild says has a 'witness' who, of course, appears to be seeking an appointment to the board of the Russian's company... All very dodgy sounding. Osborne has decided not to sue because in doing so it will further draw attention away from more substanial issues of what has and is going on. This is a brave decision due to how it might be interpreted but it could just as easily mean he is quite relaxed about his role and does not feel the need to and this will 'blow over' as more substantial news takes over.
  
  He has clearly been stitched up and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of that. I do not believe that it shows his judgement is impared an any real way unless you take it all in retrospect and that is easy for all of us to crow and shout.
  
  There are certainly a lot of questions that need to be asked but those are with regard to Mandelson and his relationship with the Russian. This is a much more substantial matter of real public concern.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sorry to come back on this yet again, I really must get on with some work in a minute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  A few things have just occured to me that raise further question marks over this whole affair....
  
  In the scale of financial scandals £50,000 is a tiny amount of money. Certainly if you compare it with some issues that have been linked to the Government over the last 11 years. It is a tiny and insignificant amount of money for a Billionaire, mere small change. That alone makes me suspicious of the whole story, perhaps Rothschild thought it small enough not to raise suspicion, yet big enough to tempt acceptance and further compromise Osborne.
  
  Also bear in mind that a donation from Leyland Daf would not have been illegal as such, so that further could have tempted acceptance. So why did the Conservative Party say no? Could it be they smelled a rat, knowing from what happened in Corfu that Mandelson was in the background.....
  
  Did they sense that Osborne was being set up? Interesting but this issue remains one of total insignficiance in the wider perspective.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Broadly speaking Barry I agree with you. I do believe that people tend to judge not through facts but through association, the press have a part to play in all this as they see what is a potential juicy bit of sleaze and set themselves up as judge and jury. I am no great lover of politicians but should hate to see Osborne resign when really the facts against him are certainly very questionable.
  To give Brown credit he had very little to say on the subject and it was only in response to a question from that well known 'beast of Bolsover' that he replied that it should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. In political terms that gave the appearance of distancing himself from the whole proceedings.
  I am sure Osborne is a man of integrity but his stupidity was allowing himself to be manipulated in the first place and then repeating matters said in confidence at a private party. In my social circles he would have been frowned upon to say the least.
  This really is insignificant compared to the seriousness of the economy and all parties should pick up their rattles and put them back in the pram.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  We can agree then Dave on virtually all points in your last post.
  
  I have just seen this on the BBC website......
  
  quote"""""""""""""""""The Electoral Commission told BBC Radio 4's The World at One it would not be investigating the claims as "soliciting a donation is not an offence".
  
  Labour MP Tony Wright, chairman of the public administration select committee, also dismissed calls for a probe.
  
  "Gordon obviously thinks it was a serious matter, and I suppose in a sense it is a serious matter," he said.
  
  "But we are not talking about corruption here, there was no corruption. We're not talking about law-breaking, there is no law-breaking. What there is is a massive misjudgement.
  
  "I am not sure which authorities Gordon thought he was talking about. The only one I can think of is the Conservative Party."
  
  Conservative MP John Redwood said Lord Mandelson should be forced to answer questions about his presence on Mr Deripaska's yacht and he rejected claims Mr Osborne had shown poor judgement.
  
  "There is no crime committed and this is just an absurd media fantasy," he told WATO. """"""""""""""""""""end quote
  
  Nice to see a Labour MP rising above the scrum even though he perhaps overstated the 'misjudgement', but then he is still an opposing MP.
• Bob Frost, Deal wrote:
  'Nice to see a Labour MP rising above the scrum'
  
  We are discussing Members of Parliament so I believe that the 'r' in the last noun is superfluous? :-)
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Bob, your cosiderable input into what was a sensible discussion is greatly appreciated.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  we seem to have moved away from the major issue.
  
  the man who sees himself as the next chancellor of the exchequer mixes with a russian oligarch who is banned from entering the united states.
  
  if that is not a serious error of judgement, he already knew that lord mantelpiece was a regular visitor to the yacht.
  
  the russian/armenian chap has had a series of court actions lodged against him in his own country.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I did post on Saturday that George Osborne was taking flak for being too anonymous, he's not now. I dont think he'll weather this storm and I doubt he will be on the frontbench at the time of the next elction.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sid
  
  if boy dave had his way, he would be lucky not to be in an electric chair, let alone the front bench.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Sid this would be a difficult one for David Cameron as himself and George Osborne are bosom buddies from as far back as university as I understand it, so wrenching them apart could prove difficult. They made this twin and totally harmonious bid for power in Tory terms and succeeded, and now of course clearly have running the country on their agenda. So it would take one helluva stink to seperate the duo.
  
  Yes we used to have complaints about the anonimity of George Osborne but now we are hearing rumblings about the 'lightness' of David Cameron. Only yesterday both the BBC and C4 mentioned him in this vein as he, in full dayglo attire, left his london home with his bicycle.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, at least Bob was only trying to inject a little humour.
  
  Sid, Howard - Osborne did nothing wrong and we have discussed this in detail, his account has not been challenged by Rothschild. I think Osborne will not be seriously damaged by this as he did not break any rules.
  
  Surely a far more serious matter is the relationship of Mandelson with this Russian and how that related to his role as EU Trade Commsssioner. There are some real and substantial issues that need investigation there and I can certainly see the storm shifting to him increasingly, even the BBC cannot ignore the matter any more.
  
  If Osborne can be critisised for his judgement (the only valid matter that might be critisised) for meeting this Russian on his boat then what of Mandelson. That calls into his judgement, at the very least, in developing a relationship with this man while EU Trade Commissioner and, indeed because of that Brown's judgement in giving him his Cabinet role.
  
  The questions that should be asked is can Mandelson weather the storm or will he be sacked from the Cabinet a third time and how does this reflect on Brown. Much, much more substantial and important.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  I'm off to a funeral so no real time to do much research but in your opinion what has Mandelson done that can be construed as improper or incorrect?.
  As for Osbourne who really gives a toss? So he had a beer on a mafioski russians boat?Big deal.I hope to be invited for drinks aboard our very own Bob's boat and I trust that won't be held against me...
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Hi Marek.
  
  When EU Trade Commissioner Mandelson developed a friendship with this Russian, I think it was back in 2005. No problem as such but soon after the EU reduced tarrifs on aluminium (his trade portfolio!) and this Russian benefitted to the tune of many millions, I have heard figures of between £30m and £50m a year quoted. As you can see from recent events they remain close. Rothschild and others involved in recent events are also close business associates of the Russian.
  
  There is no malpractise proven as such and that is why an enquiry needs to be held to either clear his name or otherwise. Given allegations against him in the past it is even more important.
  
  It seems ironic but the most serious accusation at George Osborne is that he placed himself in the position of 5 social meetings with this unsavoury Russian who has a fairly murky past and has unproven links to criminal activity in Russia. Wheras Mandelson, a major European political figure of considerable power and now a Government Minister, has had a very close relationship but his judgement has not been called into question in the same way and the BBC decided to ignore it, but pounce on Osborne....
  
  Strange priorities for the Beeb given the Mandelson's role in the EU had a direct financial benefit to this man. Many believe that the BBC has now done itself terminal damage to itself through this serious misjudgement and its days may be numbered in operating the way it does.
  
  Many of us will cheer to see the Beeb brought to book.
  
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Whatever Mandelson has done or not done he will be in the Cabinet at the next generl election and I doubt very much whether George Osborne will be in the shadow version. He looked shifty outside Millbank the other day and he didnt exactly look confident in the Commons at PMQs.
  This Tory Light thing, is it sugar free?
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Either in Cabinet or in jail, I would not dare to make a bet on which.
  
  News reports are showing that reality is being restored, pressure coming off Osborne for the non story and onto Mandelson for the real story.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I think we will find that there is not a story about Mandelson, he has made mistakes in the past but he is too wise now to do something that would compromise him. I doubt that there ever was a story but Osborne tried to start one and then fell foul because he was unwise.
  We're getting the usual media blame game, but I'll remind you that the Guardian were not cut down by Aitkin's rusty sword of truth.
  I my opinion Osborne is wounded and if he is damaged Cameron would be best putting him down now, it saves on the suffering.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  the difference is that no-one is suprised about any dealings done by lord
  mandelson
  
  osborne has been seen by the majority as dull and safe until now
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Are you saying then howard, that because of alleged improper behaviour in the past, we should not be surprised at further revelations and therefore his actions can and should go unremarked, that it also excuses the poor judgement of Brown in providing him a third chance at Cabinet Office?
  
  I disagree with that view.
  
  Sid. So what about this in the Guardian this morning...
  
  """""""""""""European commission officials who worked for Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, issued a misleading statement about the history of his relationship with Oleg Deripaska, the Russian billionaire, the Guardian has established.
  
  Mandelson's officials in Brussels, where he served as trade commissioner before returning to a role in the government earlier this month, said the two men met "at a few social gatherings in 2006 and 2007", but had never discussed aluminium, the main source of Deripaska's wealth.
  
  However, Mandelson and Deripaska were seen together at a Moscow restaurant in October 2004, after he had been appointed trade commissioner, but before he formally took up the post. A journalist spoke to both men and their companion, German Gref, who was then the Russian economics minister, and the event is also described in the blog of Benjamin Wegg-Prosser, Mandelson's former adviser and close friend.
  
  The statement by the European officials is understood to be based on information provided by Mandelson himself. It is unclear why the business secretary has not corrected it to reflect the earlier meetings."""""""
  
  As I said, this has legs, its getting murkier and murkier and an investigation is justified to either exonerate or otherwise. This is the substantive issue.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Has Cameron accepted free flights from Rupert Murdoch?That's the breaking news this morning as the Tories slip & slide into the sleaze whirlpool. A bad week for the Conservatives.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Not heard that one Marek, Labour desperate again dragging up stuff to divert attention perhaps.
  
  This does not compare by a long way with the implications of what Mandelson may have done. Then there are the further revelations now about Montenegro..... getting worse and worse, a bad week for us, I agree, but watch this space things look like hotting up for Labour and next week getting a lot worse for them. The spotlight will get back on issues that are of real importance, significance and substance.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  You fail to remember Barry that it was Osborne that caused the muck raking in the first place, had he not opened his mouth about a private conversation I doubt whether any of this would have happened.
  Turning to Brown and the economy I think he is more likely to use the Keynesian theory, which Roosevelt used quite succesfully after the great depression and which was adopted by many countries after the second world war. Whatever happens as pure Socialism died the death I think pure Capitilism will come under some scrutiny as that too has shown its failings.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  This was in the Independent
  
  David Cameron accepted free flights to hold private talks with Rupert Murdoch on his luxury yacht off a Greek island this summer, The Independent can reveal.
  
  The Tory leader delayed the start of his family holiday in Turkey to fly to Santorini, where he had drinks with Mr Murdoch on his 184ft yacht Rosehearty and later attended a dinner party with him. Mr Cameron then accepted a second free flight to Turkey, while Mr Murdoch sailed to Corfu, where the guests at a party to mark the 40th birthday of his daughter, Elisabeth, included the shadow Chancellor George Osborne, Lord Mandelson and the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska.
  
  The Tory leader has not revealed his talks with Mr Murdoch. In the Commons register of interests, he discloses that on 16 August, a private plane provided by the public relations guru Matthew Freud took his wife, Samantha, and two of their children from Farnborough to Istanbul. Mr Freud is married to Elisabeth Murdoch.
  
  A source in the private jet industry estimated the Camerons' flights would have cost around £34,300 in total.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Somehow Dave I suspect that the whole thing was a set-up for GO from he start so I disagree. As for GO mentioning what Mandelson said at a private dinner, well that kind of thing gets leaked out in politics all the time, nothing new there. Mandy maybe said too much at a dinner about how useless Brown is, right in front of the Shadow Chancellor, hardly news.
  
  I note that the economy has contracted more than expected and this pretty much confirms what I fear, that the recession could be longer and deeper than the early 90's. Brown's debt bubble kept us out of a real slowdown 7/8 years ago hence giving rise to his daft claim about getting rid of boom and bust. This is now the correction and will be much worse as a result.
  
  This recession is clearly far worse simply because of the Brown mismanagment of the economy as I have been warning.
  
  The problem now is as you suggest that Brown will revert to Keynseyan economics that will stoke up future problems including sky high domestic inflation.
  
  To mix a few metaphors, there is no such thing as a free lunch, chickens will come home to roost and his increase borrow/spend policies will just be pouring oil on the flames.
  
  He should be looking at serious spending cuts, not on capital projects, but on revenue, day to day spending. There has been no real spending control over the last 11 years and the public sector has got fat on it, so there is a lot of room to cut without hitting front line services.
  
  He should not expect the private sector to shoulder all the burden because that will deepen and lengthen the recession. Dont forget the vast majority of small businesses will not benefit from increased government spending on its projects.
  
  We are first into the recession, any bets that we will be last out!!!
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So it was declared on the Commons register then Marek, so he did nothing improper.
  
  You might not like what he did but he clearly acted within the rules.
  
  Hardly comparable with Mandelson's machinations is it. Mandy is still is trying to hide the scope of his involvement with the Russian.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  Heres the latest poll for you to consider as you sip your Earl Gray and munch your way through the toast and marmalade this Saturday morning.....
  
  Who is best for Britain in the current financial crisis?
  
  Results: Votes Per cent
  
  Gordon Brown 28,276 62%
  David Cameron 8,046 18%
  Nick Clegg 1,834 4%
  None, we're all doomed 7,587 16%
  
  Total votes: 45,743
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  So tell me Marek, what is the provenance of that poll?
  
  Who conducted it?
  How was it conducted?
  
  I follow all the main professional polling organisations and I cannot see where this one comes in. It isnt an unofficial website poll is it? They have as much credability as 'Elvis lives on the moon'.
  
  There have been a lot of polls lately and yes there was one which asked a question about who is best in the crisis and Brown came out on top (nowhere near by the margin you suggest). It still gave Conservative on the 'who would you vote for' question a rating in the 40% plus mark and it also had a question that specifically excluded the crisis (more relevant as there will no longer be a crisis only a recession when there is an election) and there was a marked improvement for the Conservatives. I will see if I can find the figures and post them.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, I have not found the one I mentioned but your might find this a little more credable, found in the Guardian from Monday:
  
  """""""""Gordon Brown is winning praise but not votes for his handling of the financial crisis, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows the Conservatives maintaining a double-digit lead, enough for a Commons majority, despite the transformation of the prime minister's reputation at Westminster.
  
  Labour has been hoping for an electoral reward from the prime minister's newfound confidence and international standing, but so far voters seem unimpressed. Six out of 10 think he has done well, but there has been no bounce in Labour's fortunes.
  
  Asked whether Brown's response to the crisis makes them more or less likely to vote Labour, only 13% say more, against 27% who say less. Most, 60%, say it has made little difference.
  
  Brown's actions appear to be strengthening Labour's core support, but are making little impression among opposition supporters. Among Conservatives, only 3% say they are now more likely to think of switching to Labour and among Liberal Democrats only 11%.
  
  Even among people who backed Labour in 2005 - some of whom now back other parties - only 25% say the crisis has made them more supportive of Labour.
  
  Today's state of the parties poll puts Labour on 30%, 12 points behind the Conservatives, who are on 42%. At a general election, that would leave Labour around 100 seats behind the Tories. David Cameron would have a small, but secure parliamentary majority.
  
  Today's figures for the two main parties are identical to those in the last Guardian/ICM poll, which followed the Conservative party conference and showed a small boost in Tory support. Since then, the prime minister has launched his high-profile bank bail-out and made a series of national appearances, while the Conservatives have struggled to make a mark."""""""""""""""
  
  That last paragraph is very telling indeed. At such a time Labour would normally expect a big bounce, it has not happened. The voters have caught on.
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I didn't see that the Guardian poll quoted by Barry was from Monday and have just been flicking through the paper. Monday is almost a week past and as a week is a long time in politics we'll need to see how things develop over the next few months before we know whether it's a blip for the Tories or if Brown has a bounce.
  The Guardian have a report that a British businessman who represents a Ukrainian oligarch is paying tens of thousands of pounds in donations to the Tories. Maybe Osborne was just carrying out orders to get more money.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  funny to see you quote from the guardian.
  
  you have accused me of reading it in the past.
  
  now we find that you are a closet liberal.
  
  i am trying to picture you in a woolly jumper, corduroy trousers and sandals, with much difficulty though.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Surely Howard you are aware of the old maxim, know thy enemy....
  
  You must have seen me frequently use article from the Guardian to demonstrate a point I am making.
  
  Given the tendancy of the left to hide from issues with which they are uncomfortable by putting down sources such as The Mail and the Telegraph, I do like to use their own rags against them.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  The Guardian website today has stories about secret loans and donations to the Tory Party. They report that the party recently turned down an impermissible donation for £6,600 from an American banker before accepting an identical sum from her British-based company six days later which the Electoral Commission is now investigating.
  If they are so short of money they could get Neil Hamilton to speak to potential donors, he was good at getting cash if I remember rightly.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i can see where you are coming from barry.
  
  i read the mail, express and sun for the same reason.
• J, Dover wrote:
  I allowed myself a small chuckle earlier today after reading the flyer promoting our prospective Labour councillor which was pushed through my letterbox. Among the many triumphs put through by nulabour over the past decade, it says, "include the building of the bandstand in Pencester gardens."
  Yes a triumph indeed! A testament, a landmark to remind us all of life in Britain under the current administration. What started out as a bold dream, a vision of how We could all enjoy music and culture against a beautiful backdrop of well manicured lawns, glorious trees and Dover castlle as a sublime backdrop has sadly disintegrated into something completely different. Some friends of mine have found themselves on the recieving end of abuse and worse from some of those who choose to use the bandstand to train their dogs to train or go to the toilet while sampling the delights of budget lager or cider. Was this really in the minds of those who thought that this would improve our area?
  When was the last time it was actually used for its original intent as a "bandstand"? How many times has it been used for the purpose since its inception? I reckon it's less than twenty but someone may be able to put me right on this.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good post there.
  
  the bandstand along with a lot of pencester gardens is given over to the detritus of our society.
  it does not fit in with the description on the town council website.
  
  just as an addendum, i went through the gardens late this afternoon and noticed that the new kiddies play area was jam packed.
  
  problem is, it was jam packed with teenagers.
  i spotted one grandparent remonstrating that she wanted her charge to have the use of one piece of equipment, she just got laughed at.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  The Zip wire has been out of commission for weeks in the kids play area..and they want to erect and run a cable car..they are having a giraffe aren't they?
• J, Dover wrote:
  A strange thing happened earlier. Some joker left some bags at my doorstep. They are all coloured differently and have some sort of official writing on the side of them. I didn't have my glasses on and they were left in a heap and as I was walking through the door getting ready to prepare tea I walked straight over them. They still lie there and the journey to the front door is too long this time of the evening for me to be bothered to inspect them more closely. I wonder if this is some sort of prank by local school children or even an early attempt at some sort of halloween jape. Strangely I recieved more bumph tonight and these included the usual array of prospective local wannabee councillors' A4 spreads which generally are so badly written I've given up reading them. Alongside this I recieved some more meaningless lunacy from I think it may have been from the local council teaching me about recycling. Oh! God how my heart sank- I thought it might be a rate rebate but alas No merely some joined up letters which I didn't read because, as I explained earlier, I didn't have my reading glasses to hand.
  So, to conclude this ultimately gripping narative, I am popping into the tip at Whitfield tommorrow (Christ- No recycling centre God forgive me!) on my way to the local supermarket and was considering binning these bags which really constitute litter as far as I'm concerned for they are far to small to be of any use to, for example use as rubbish recepticles, alongside the endless supply of dead trees posted through my letterbox.
  I ask you, the good posters on this site, exactly what should I do with this stuff? Bin it? Take it too the local charity shop? Use them for shopping in the local supermarket? (they are the same size as the standard plastic carrier bag)
  Actually I've just had a brilliant idea!
  I could use these bags as recycling bags.
  But........
  They really are too small for the job and where would I store them till the bin men (Christ NO sorry,erm, recycling operatives of unspecific gender ethnic origin, religion or in general any other non-specific minority belief or grouping that might be offended by the likes of me) turned up to collect them.
  AND that would be wasteful of water as I hear that recycled cans and bottles require cleaning with precious water before recycling and that would lead to GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING
  So the dump it is then.
  Thanks for listening to me and making my mind up for me.
  Good luck all
  Thanks for listening but I've made up my mind
• J, Dover wrote:
  Oh my goodness me. I've been downstairs and checked the litter dropped at my door earlier. Gadzooks it's not litter after all but recycling bags.
  Looks like I shant be taking the things to the tip after all.
  Blimey that was close was it not?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Interesting posts J, you will probably find this is the new fuller bodied DDC recycling scheme kicking up a notch. They recently announced improvements to the service to include a wider range of recyclables. DDC are improving their GREEN credentials.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  It was refreshing yesterday to hear Shadow Chancellor George Osborne admit to an error of judgement for being involved in a conversation with that Russian billionaire re possible donations to the Conservative Party. Why refreshing? Well it is the norm for politicians to try and wheadle their way out of almost everything. The public can see the slipperly slivery deceptions going on, and pray for someone just to say..ooops I got it wrong!
  
  Although Osborne hasnt admitted any wrongdoing, in that he himself didnt ask for a donation, he does admit to being there when a conversation along those lines took place.
  
  Its a refreshing change therefore to hear a politican put their hands up to something. We all make mistakes. Heavens Ive even made them myself..I know shock horror! So the general public can comfortably align themselves to someone who admits to a mistake.
  
  The story itself has died the death now, as its not going to go anywhere, nobody can ever prove anything either way about either Osborne or Mandelson.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  john
  With regard to the bandstand, You cant realy blame that on any administration, to my mind to build a bandstand right next to skatepark is asking for trouble.
  
  How can you tell kids not to use skatepark whilst bandstand in use? no you cant, it was bad planning, but its there, I think more use should be made of it, even getting youngsters from school bands to play there on a regular basis.
  
  It showed when the priory forum had bands in pencester at its fun day it drew in the crowds so it does work.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Independent’ poll reveals Tory lead slashed to just eight points – which would lead to a hung parliament in an election,I think that will be the first one since '74 when 'Arold Wilson got in 301 seats to Tories 297.
  
  A ComRes poll for The Independent today shows the Tory advantage has slumped from 19 to eight points in just two months. Such a "Brown bounce" connected to the recent economic turmoil would be enough to deprive David Cameron of an overall majority in a general election. Two months ago, the Tory leader was on course for a landslide victory.
  
  The next few months should prove interesting especially with the US Presidential election only a few days away.Could this have a knock on effect in the UK.Historically the Labour Party have always had closer links with the Democrats.So a win for Obama could herald the beginning of a new 'special relationship' between the two countries.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dont get too confident Marek. As I have been saying for some time we are in for a difficult, long and deep recession and that is very different to an immediate crisis. The trend of recent polls simply show an improvement for Labour with the Conservative vote being realy quite resiliant. As the recession bites we will see a different polling picture emerging over the next year or so. Cameron is, quite rightly, playing a long game.
  
  The UK is first into the recession and that destoys Brown's argument that we are well placed, an argument that never did have any firmer foundations than his 'end to boom and bust' claim.
  
  It will be well into 2010 before the public feel any improvement in their living standards and in the meantime unemployment could top 3m with many businesses going to the wall with small ones being worse hit.
  
  So far Brown and Darling are merely repeating the mistakes that placed this country in a far worse a condition than it should be. As Japan demonstrated some years ago their medicine will not work long term and will just stack up more problems for the future.
  
  They must make some real and lasting cuts to public spending, not on capital projects but in revenue spending. The public sector must share a part of the burden.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  i said at the very beginning of this fiasco with osborne, he made the mistake of putting himself in a situation where things looked bad.
  
  he has done well to finally admit that.
  
  time to move on now.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  brilliant video, everyone should see it....
  
  ww.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006603.html
  
  copy and paste, adding in a w at the beginning as the site would not accept a link.
• J, Dover wrote:
  You poor people are really missing the point. While the rest of the Country are bleating on about the Jonathon Ross affair and others are talking up yesterdays news about the shadow chancellor and his meetings with some Russian businessman and his very expensive boat, meantime the House of commons are "debating" the climate change bill or whatever its called.
  Do you realise what damage this bill will do to the Country if (and it will be ) passed into law????????
  It will bankrupt our Country. If you think that todays financial problems are bad then just you wait for the really bad news.
  This bill will make our once glorious Nation a third World country. It will drain us all. All in the name of "saving the Planet". I despair I really do.
  So some smart Alecs will say that We have to do something (even if there is no climate change- it can't do any harm can it?"
  Well sorry my friends Yes it can and it will. It will destroy the manufacturing base, or what's left of it, and it will drain the rest of what little money this Country has in order to comply with the endless list of EU regulations that now really govern this Country of ours.
  Make no mistake my friends you think that you are going to save the Planet by filling a few bags left at your front door by the local council in order to recycle? Ha ha ha. That is just the start of it all.
  Find out who makes up these laws and the vested interests they really serve. It's terrifying really to those who thought that the modern World had changed and this sort of thing was consigned to the history books.
  Now that every mainstream political party has signed up to the mass hysteria like they would all line up to believe that the World was created six thousand years ago, your vote for any one of these charlatans is really a wasted vote.
  I urge you not to vote
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Some good news.So it's not all doom and gloom
  Car giant Ford announced a £70 million investment boost at an engine plant in the UK, giving a big lift to the recession-hit motor industry.
  
  The company announced that its factory in Bridgend, South Wales, will produce a new generation of low CO2 petrol engines.
  The investment will secure work at the 28-year-old factory which employs more than 2,000 staff.
  
  The company has invested more than £300 million at Bridgend over the last five years and the additional money announced on Tuesday will increase the plant's production capability to almost one million engines a year.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Marek I believe a considerable amount of that investment is taxpayers money. Worth just noting that fact. I havent had time to look at the detail yet but heard the comment on the radio.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  PaulB
  I think the taxpayers share was £13.2 million.But it illustrates that Ford thinks it is still a safe enough country to invest in despite the current gloom surrounding the credit crunch.A sign I believe that at least the Yanks think that GB may have just about got it right with regards the economy.
• keith, Dover wrote:
  Marek,
  I have for some time said the tide will turn(even in the dark brown days) but GB is startng the fight back, and people are now seeing thru cameron, and the election now appears to be wide open again, healthy
  nice to see.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I am very amused by these comments from Marek and Keith, trying hard to keep their chins up.
  
  The real world events are very different.
  
  If overseas investors have a vote of confidence in our economy why the run on the pound?
  
  This investment by Ford has been tempted into the UK by a Government handout and, no doubt, they are looking years ahead just like any sensible investors. With the problems in Euroland, looking forward, the UK free from the Euro and resistant to the EU social policies and with greater labour mobility (more so when we get a change of Government) is not too bad a place to invest when compared to France, Germany and so on. Our advantage in this respect has been underminded by the present Government with its red tape and kow towing to the EU over the Social Chapter and so on but nevertheless there does remain a vestige left of Mrs T's legacy and a change in Government will help further.
  
  In a downturn those companies that are able to do so will invest in order to cash in on the recovery. I am doing it now in my business, difficult as it is.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  There is a very good point PaulB. It reminds the Prime Minister he answers (or should answer) to Parliament. It is there to test them in the 'cockpit of the nation'.
  
  If Bush had to face this kind of questioning and pressure week after week maybe he would not have won a second term, perhaps his authority would have been destroyed earlier, maybe it would have influenced a more thoughful policy approach....who knows.
  
  Cameron had Brown skewered well and proper. Brown has said he is going to spend his way out of recession, Darling is due to make a speech today throwing away Brown's 'golden rules'. Cameron was making the point that Brown himself said 'you cant spend your way out of recession', he also set the golden rules as being durable through all cycles of the economy. With today's policy anouncements he is shown to be wrong on every major issue of economic competence. This goes to the very root of Brown's personal credability, add this to his 'end to boom and bust' it adds to the case against him.
  
  I have said Brown was being incompetent as Chancellor all along, way before the crisis and downturn. We are now seeing the proof.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i am still trying to work out the point of "j"s post.
• bernType your name here..., dover wrote:
  When you do, please drop me a line and let me know as well.............
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah yes you are quite right BarryW, PM's Questions is a useful piece of democracy in action. Yesterdays one however, and even the commentators on R4 this morning said so, yesterdays one was a pretty pooor example of it which led me to write the piece above. In these bleak times one looks towards Parliament, not just government, to shine a light forward for us all.
  
  Quoting who said what and when yesterday was a pointless process, as everyone can find endless quotes everyone said at one time that might not be very relevant to current events..and both sides were doing it.
  
  I think it was our own Keith who said.."we are where we are and we have to deal with it" or words to that effect. There you are Im even now using quotes myself..the affliction is spreading!lol
  
  It would be good to see Parliament, as opposed to Government, pooling ideas in difficult times and not do cheap party politics. The nation is crying out to see parliamentary people pulling together to pull us forward.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The whole point is that this goes to crux of Gordon Brown's competence, or not. Labour supporting media, such as the BBC, will of course underplay this but it is picked up by many 'opinion formers' in the media and elsewhere and thereby impacts on the narrative surrounding current events.
  
  Time after time Brown has said something that has then been shown to be incorrect.
  
  Was his claim in 1997 that the golden rule was meant to govern economic behaviour throughout economic cycles now invalid simply because it was said in 1997. It would be very strange to say that.
  
  Lets face it, Brown ignored the rule anyway, once the shackles were off after the promised period of keeping to Ken Clarke's spending plans, he immediately increased borrowing in the part of the economic cycle when, according to his own golden rule he should have been repaying it... But then Brown did say he had banned boom and bust, perhaps he was foolish enough to believe it.
  
  Let us also not forget (unlike Labour's BBC cheerleaders in their reporting) that Brown also used PFI to borrow even more 'off balance sheet' anyway. Now what was that he said in New York attacking businesses about irresponsible off balance sheet behaviour?
  
  In what he called the 'age of irresponsiblility' he was the cheer leader for it.
  
  It is not just what comes out of his mouth that is the problem. His changes to the regulation of the banks was largely responsible for the depth of the rrecent banking crisis. His undermining of the savings culture in the UK deprived many people of the cushion they need for hard times, leaving them having to borrow instead. His selling off of gold, against advice, is a testiment to folly and incompetence. His ignoring of pensions experts that has contributed massively to undermining people retirement savings is a timebomb under ffuture generations.
  
  Brown has established a track record of inconsistency, fiddling figures to meet whatever argument suits him at any one time and even making them up. I had to laugh out loud at a recent claim that he can afford this extra borrowing because they had repaid £100bn, a claim that had absolutely no basis of truth at all. Just what does that tell us about his competence, veracity and fitness to govern?
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Isn't the off balance sheet borrowing that Barry refers to a way around the PSBR issues that John Major locked this country in to when he signed the Maastricht treaty?
  
  I'm sure most of the British public would rather see Gordon Brown lead us at this time of a [global] financial crisis than return to the mismanagement of the Major/ Lamont years. Wasn't David Cameron an advisor to Lamont at the time of Black Wednesday?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i would still like to see the brains of the 3 major parties get their heads together, pool ideas, forget party politics and find a way forward that is beneficial to all.
  
  i think that our leader said something similar earlier.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You got that around the wrong way Sid. The Major years left a golden economic legacy for Blair to inherit.
  
  Brown is the one who has mismanaged the economy over the last 11 years leading to this bust. Do try to keep up, I have just explained many of his errors and misjudgments. By all meams address those and try to seaon them through from his point of view, I would welcome an informed debate on these matters.
  
  I have said it befpre and will say it again, Brown is way over his head and has been since the start, a totally useleess and incompetent Chancellor, he is even worse as PM.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry are you saying there wasnt a Black Wednesday? Didnt Lamont put up interest rates more than once in one day? Was I wrong that Cameron was an advisor to Lamont?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sid
  
  maybe black wednesday was just a "figleaf" of our imagination..
  i was at a do at the london chamber of commerce when the news started to filter through.
  
  interest rates up from 10% to 13%, the place came to a halt.
  a little later up to 15%.
  no business was done, everyone was too worried about their mortgage repayments.
  
  those two idiots managed to bring the country to a stop in just one afternoon.
  by the morning everything was back to normal for most people.
  
  the economics of the circus.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Black Wednesday was a direct result of our membership of European Monetary Union, a policy supported and promoted by Labour, TUC, CBI, Liberals, the pro-EU wing of the Conservatives and vitually the whole media. It was actually the catalyst for our recovery from the downturn. The ultimate result was then the 'golden economic legacy' that was the inheritance of Labour, as admitted by Blair in a rare candid moment.
  
  It is Brown's mismanagement since then that has made the present downturn much worse than it should be. Do I really have to list, yet again, the many idiotic actions that have so damaged our economy?
  
  You would rather, of course, go back into ancient history to cover up the Brown mistakes.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  After months of record poll deficits, the Prime Minister has seen some support return, according to the Daily Telegraph/YouGov survey, which shows David Cameron's lead has been reduced to only nine points.
  
  At the end of May, in the wake of the disastrous Crewe and Nantwich by-election, Labour polled just 23 per cent – its lowest showing since records began – putting it 24 points behind the Tories.
  
  Last month, before the financial crisis escalated, the lead was 20 points. That was reduced to 14 points earlier this month in the immediate aftermath of the party conference season and is now down to nine. Today's poll puts the Tories on 42 points, down three, while Labour are on 33, up two, with the Liberal Democrats on 15. Translated to a general election, the Conservative majority would be only 22.
  
  The last time the Tories' lead was in single figures was eight months ago. However, the growth of the financial crisis over the last two months seems, politically at least, to have worked in Mr Brown's favour.
  
  The former chancellor has appeared more relaxed when dealing with the financial meltdown than at any other time in the last year, and he also carried out a Cabinet reshuffle which has restored party unity after months of division and threats of a leadership challenge.
  
  The return of Peter Mandelson to the Cabinet neutralised the Blairite threat to his leadership and inadvertently dragged George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, into the "Yachtgate" (love it) row which has put the Tories on the back foot when they should have been attacking Mr Brown's economic record. The Tories have also faced criticism for a lacklustre response to the banking turmoil.
  
  According to the poll, Labour holds a one point lead over the Conservatives when people are asked which of the two major parties they would trust more to get Britain out of the present financial crisis – despite the party having been in power while the meltdown has happened.
  
  When asked which of the two parties they trust more to look after the interests of ordinary people during the present crisis, 33 per cent say Labour compared to only 28 per cent who say the Conservatives.
  
  However, three quarters of people say that Mr Brown must bear much or some responsibility for allowing bank lending and personal borrowing to get out of hand in the first place.As if he was interviewing each applicant.The responsibility firmly lies with the greedy loan companies who were more than eager to lend folk money regardless of their personal circumstances.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You might be interested in what the Conservative reaction to this poll is, Marek.... From Conhome today:
  
  """"""""""Telegraph is showing it as a big Labour boost, but only because they are comparing it with one from over a month ago. Compare it to the last YouGov (as ConHome has), and Labour have actually gone down a point. It's all margin of error stuff, but again it doesn't look like Brown is getting as many plaudits as the press would have you believe.
  
  Interestingly, Cameron and Osborne are now back ahead on trust with the economy, though Labour have a one point lead for the 'current crisis' question.""""""""""""""""""""""
  
  As you can see we are very relaxed as we know what is coming will not be good for Brown and Cameron has been playing a long tactical game with a likely 18 months to an election, keeping his power dry. I was concerned in the summer that we had peaked too soon but I have less concerns over that with recent developments.
  
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Despite the recent onslaught from the Tories attacking Gordon Brown's economic track record, the Opinion Polls, as Marek indicates there below, are continually tightening. The gap, between the glorious Tory summer lead, and Gordons advancing autumn, has shrivelled to a few points in some cases.
  
  It is clearly Conservative strategy to hammer away at Gordon's economics record, shadow Chancellor George Osborne did it today, as have others, and our own BarryW hammers away at it as per head office mandate. But the strategy is not working as people are clearly not buying it.
  
  Like or not, or even rightly or wrongly, people see Gordon Brown as an economics guru and now as they struggle in the financial pit of black despair, they are not, I say not, turning to George Osborne as their saviour. If they did the Polls would be rampantly Conservative right now.
  
  Difficult to know what the Tories should do strategy wise, a change of direction is needed, as their current strategy sees their Polls lead slipping away piece by painful piece, day by painful day.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  No head office mandate PaulB, merely remind you all of what I have been warning for years, as a finance professional I have seeen his many errors and have warned about them long before the media or in some cases politicians, Brown has been the most utterly useless Chancellor, ever.
  
  I am sure some people like the idea of Mr Bean being in charges in a crisis, anything for a laugh!!
  
  The crisis is abating now and giving way to a grinding recession and we are just in to the start of it. A very different ball game is and will develop and make no mistake Mrs Beans chickens will come home to roost politically as well as, sadly, economically.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have just seen this on the Guido Blog. this is a 'must read' blog for Westminster insiders and is very cutting at the best of times but he really hit a bullseye with this.
  
  ww.order-order.com/2008/10/brown-bonkers-or-liar.html
  
  """""""""""Gordon has just told BBC News that he can go on a spending splurge because:
  
  "National debt is low and we're able to borrow to do it."
  
  This is just delusional, he has run up the debt burden during his decade of unfunded spending, we have the biggest national deficit of all time, the books have never been so unbalanced as they are now. He fiddles the statistics, we know that, the Office of National Statistics even says so. Journalists know it. His own cabinet knows it. The Civil Service knows it. The City knows it. Foreign investors know it. This is why the pound has plunged against almost everything apart from the Icelandic Krona.
  
  Guido Asked the PM to explain why, for example, the unfunded public sector pension debt is not government debt and hopes he can answer it without evasion. Because if he can't he must either be (a) bonkers (b) a liar. Which is it? """"""""""""""
  
  very succinct and very true.
  
  So, is Gordon Brown bonkers or is he a liar? that really is the question....
  
  What other explanation can there be for him to still be making statements with his own offficial statistical body let alone what everyone else believes.
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  The Conseratives are just failing to get their policies across, Osborne speaks without conviction and gives the appearance that he is uneasy in what he says. His speech today failed to reach the top spot on any of the news channels and on ITV the fourth major headline was giant Pandas, it is almost as if even the press think that the Conservatives are un-newsworth.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i am surprised to see no comments to the article and picture at the top of the page.
  
  our biggest local employer has made it clear that they have no intention of discussing the future of it's staff with the staff or representatives of them.
  
  good to see our MP bringing it into the open and standing firm with the victims.
• J, Dover wrote:
  For those of you who were wondering what on Earth I was on about earlier here is a piece from Conservative home which neatly describes my feelings on the matter.
  
  conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/10/the-climate-cha.html
  
  
  You think things are bad now?
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Taking Dave's point about the Tories, maybe they are inconsequential and their day has gone. George Osborne, he's the Shadow Chancellor at the moment, made a big speach today that filled the news eadlines for about five minutes. Afterwards Lib Dem Vince Cable said "George Osborne is clearly way out of his depth," and has shown "poor judgement" throughout the economic downturn and accused him having nothing to offer families get through the tough times.
  He added, "His arguments on how to get us out of recession are entirely incoherent. He argues against continuing government spending on the basis that it will push up borrowing, then announces un-funded tax cuts which would do just that."
  That was probably before he heard that there were pandas on the telly.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You can waffle on, Sid, Dave and whoever else, trying to divert attention from Irresponsibility Brown but what about the answer to Guido's question..
  
  Is Gordon Brown bonkers or is he a liar?
  
  Come on, which. It has to be one of these things. After all he is saying the opposite to what his own Office of National Statistics say, he is saying the opposite to what the EU have said, he is saying the opposite to what the OECD have said.... He and his accolytes are the only ones making the claims he makes, no-one independent believes him, so what is the answer to the question put by Guido?
  
  Is the man running the UK
  
  a) A liar
  
  or
  
  b) Bonkers
  
  There is no other explanation for him to be at such odds with everyone else who is in a position to know.
  
  Answer please without trying to hide from the truth, Brown is the real issue here and he is the current and future problem for the British economy.
  
  Bonkers or a liar......ANSWER
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  
  
  "bonkers or liar"?
  have you been reading the re tops again?
  
  the issues demand a more measured response.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  In my opinion Gordon Brown is neither. With the Tories eyes [only] on the opinion polls you should realise Barry that it is ok for people to take the information available to them and form an opinion, even if it is not one you like or agree with. And it may be that your opinion is wrong sometimes.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I am not trying to waffle about anything, I merely commented on the fact that the Tories do not appear to have come up with anything that excites the public or the media,unless you count the fiasco over Osborne and the Russian.
  The policies have nothing to with it, the fact is that Osborne is out of his depth and it shows and incidentally on the ITN six o' clock news his speech was not mentioned at all, Ross and Brand seemed to have hogged the headlines more.
  
• J, Dover wrote:
  Hmmmn I get the feeling that I'm being ignored. Can't imagine why considering that there is an invitation to comment on this website. Perhaps it's above the heads of most people. Oh well sorry and I won't be bothering you kind people again.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid, Howard, Dave....
  
  So: Brown keeps asserting he has reduced borrowing....
  
  His own statistical body the ONS say the opposite
  The EU say the opposite
  The OECD say the opposite
  Just about every economist says the opposite
  
  You still think he is neither deluded or a liar.... So what is he then, living on another planet?
  
  He is the issue here, it is this fool who has been running our finances for the last 11 years.
  
  He thinks he is right, despite everyone else, independent & international bodies, saying he is wrong.....
  
  He tries to pretend that everything is the fault of the global siruation, that we are 'better placed than other countries'.... No independent body agrees, we are first in to the recession, we have had a run on a bank, we have had a run on the pound................We are in the worse position of any other country to cope with this downturn - all because of Gordon Brown.
  
  This is why small businesses are going bankrupt, this is why 3m will be out of work by the end of next year.
  
  So am I getting through to you. Stop trying to defend the undefendable and face reality, the British people have been led up the garden path for 11 years and the myth has exploded. And Brown - well he is in a hole and simply does not have the sense to stop digging.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  What do the Tories offer as a solution?
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah J not to worry... carry on its early days and you are not being ignored at all, as im sure lots of people have read your every word.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  
  J.
  
  I went to your link on climate change and I do agree with you - very much.
  
  Climate change or "green" taxes here, will make no difference whatsoever to changing the climate, all it will do is make us, as individuals and as a Nation, poorer.
  
  If our input to Global Warming is around, or less than, two percent, why is the other 98% who are not taking any, or very little notice, being allowed to take all the advantages and ignoring this - once again, as with all the stupid EU rules and regulations that are pronounced by Brussels, only taken up by us (Britain) and ignored by everyone else.
  
  A very serious problem for all of us, sadly overlooked by the vast majority.
  
  
  Incidentally, I think Barry is right and is a lone voice shouting about the problems caused by Brown - Britain is unable to cope as it should have been able to, purely because of Brown and his incompetance - stealing our hard-earned money over the past eleven years and not doing anything to improve any part of our lives, whether crime, education, health service - it's all worse and so is our "feel-good factor" (what feel good factor ??).
  
  Changing the rules and regulations on how our financial institutions are regulated, are the (main) cause of a lot of our banking crisis and not putting "our" money aside during the good times, so we could cope in the bad.
  Why is the undefendable being so strongly defended ?
  
  The British state is failing. The government has taken more than £1.2 trillion in additional taxation since 1997, yet still fails to discharge its primary functions competently. Our schoolchildren compare dismally with their contemporaries in other countries; our healthcare system is likelier to kill its charges than any other in the EU; we have the highest prison population in Europe and one of the highest crime rates; we have lost control of our borders; our transport infrastructure is overloaded etc. etc.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
  
  
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Roger
  The first thing the Labour Party did when taking up office was to 'free' the Bank of England from the govt.In fact under the Tories the banks were far more regulated than they were, up to the present crisis.However since the crisis many people feel that a lot of todays economic problems have been caused by reckless greedy bankers gambling..and there is no other word for it..on the futures markets.Banks and investors have gambled..to use BarryWs' quote, investments can fall as well as rise...on the continued success and prosperity of the govt carved out by prudent economics of the previous Chancellor.
  
  I read all the critisisms but yet to have seen a clear plan put forward by the Tories.As the rest of the world adopt Browns hailed rescue plan the Tories think they are right and the rest of the world have got it wrong.As they are not in power it really doesn't matter and I for one would urge Brown to continue with his strategy.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek. As the Conservatives are not in Government they are not responsible for leading us out of a recession, so any ideas have no immediate practical impact as in 2010, the most likely date for an election, we should be out of the recession. (If not then it rerally will have a disaster on our hands)
  
  Sady the man responsible for turning what should have been a downturn into a recession, or a shallow recession into a long and deep one, is also then man who is charged with getting us out of it. His actions will determine just how long and deep it is.
  
  I have myself put forward a view on what should be done and centred on that is to share the burden between the private and public sectors with public spending cuts. George Osborne made a very detailed critique of the economy a couple of days ago and put forward some very solid and sensible ideas based on restoring sound fiscal management.
  
  You can read the full text of his speach here: (copy and paste adding a w to the front) ww.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2008/10/George_Osborne_Recovery_through_fiscal_responsibility.aspx
  
  So far the only defence, on the forum, that has been put forward of Gordon Brown is twofold:
  1/ Weak and purile attacks on George Osborne to divert attention from Brown.
  2/ To ignore the body of evidence quoted and express blind faith.
  
  Neither of those is good enough. Where is the independent supporting evidence that Brown is right in what he says to suggest that the following respected bodies are wrong:
  The OECD
  The EU (well, respected by some!)
  The Governments own Office of National Statistics
  
  I did not mention that you can add the IMF to that. They (and the EU) issued 7 warnings over Britains debt levels from as early as 2003.
  
  That is one formidable body of independent evidence.
  
  So what do Labour supporters have to justify Brown's assertion that we do not have excessive debt that stacks up against these?
  
  Without such evidence you can only have one of two conclusions either:
  Brown is a liar - or
  Brown is deluded (bonkers to use Guido's term)
  
  Which is it - or what evidence is there (independent) that can match those bodies quoted to say Brown is right.
  
  You cannot have it both ways.
  
  Without that evidence is he bonker or a liar.
  
  A simple question that should be answered by those who are trying to justify his stewardship of the economy.
  
  To have a prime Minister who lies in the face of such overwhelming evidence is itself perhaps an indication of his being bonkers.
  
  A bonkers Prime Minister is plain scary particularly when we are at war and in a financial squeeze.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  j. I too read your post and do not agree with the myth of man made global warming. Neither do I agree that we should disadvantage ourselves in pursuit of that.
  
  That said - it is a very trendy and commonly held view that we have created this problem. Politicians will go along with the trend of this view chasing votes, but what at the end of the day is important, is how the issue is addressed and whether it can be done in such a way that provides us with a competitive advantage.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  There is another body backing up the IMF/OECD/EU and ONS in making the case against Brown over debt. The Institute of Fiscal Studies, less authorative than the other bodies quoted and being a think tank they do have their own agenda but nevertheless it makes bad reading for Brown.
  
  I have a full copy of their report in the office if someone want a look.
  
  They say the shortfall between tax revenues and public spending will be 4.4 per cent of economic output this year. Comparing with only 1 per cent at the start of the recession in 1990 under John Major.
  
  The IFS report talks about a decade of extravagant spending leaving the Government with nothing left to tackle the recession. The national debt measures the Government's total liabilities. The deficit is the annual shortfall between the amount of cash coming into Treasury coffers and spending on public services. Government debt is heading for 39.7 per cent of gross domestic product, the IFS calculated - or a record £592billion.
  
  In the last recession, at the end of 1990, public debt was far lower at 26.2 per cent of economic output - or £151billion.
  
  I should add here that the matter looks even worse in context because we have just ended a record 16 year peiod of growth. It was Brown's golden rule that correctly said borrowing should be repaid in periods of growth to leave room to borrow in bad times. That golden rule was only formally abandoned last week. In 1990 we had previously a period of growth on the 'normal' economic cycle of about 7/8 years.
  
  The IFS expects the deficit, meanwhile, to hit £64billion this year, or 4.4 per cent of output. In 1990-91 it was a mere 1 per cent of national output, or £5.8billion.
  
  The IFS also found that the public finances are weak in comparison with many other countries. Britain has the 11th highest debt burden of 28 leading countries, it said, and the second-biggest deficit of the G7 economies after the U.S.
  
  """"We have done less to reduce our structural budget deficit and less to reduce our debt than most other industrial countries since Labour came to office."""""
  
  Interestingly they choose to ignore the Northern Rock bailout and the re-capitalisation of the banks. I can see the point of excluding the bank re-capitalisation but not the Northern Rock bailout. That would make the present figures look much worse.
  
  Economic forcasters have also predicted that under current policies our debt will soar to more than 53% of GDP by 2010 to match or exceed the level at which James Callaghan had to go to the IMF to seek a loan to bail us out in the late 1970's. The loan was provided only on his agreeing to cut spending. He did just that and made the biggest ever cuts in British public spending in the couple of years leading up to Mrs T. Her so called cuts were no more than cuts to planned spending because Callaghan did the real cuts for her...
  
  Far better that we should vut public spending now and allow the economy to reciver quicker than be forced to later, it would be much less painful. But then we have Brown in charge.
  
  So I put the question to his defenders again....
  
  As he is at such odds in what he says with so many independent and professional bodies, including his own ONS, is he...
  bonker or a liar (or as I think, both)
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry, I am not making pure and futile attacks on Osborne I have already said that it was a fiasco.
  You bombard everybody with quote after quote, statistic after statistic it is not what I asked.
  I will repeat my question and that is why is it that an important speech by the Shadow Chancellor, who after all is possibly going to be the keeper of the nations' purse, warrants hardly a mention on any of the main television news programmes.
  The Opposition is charged with opposing, where are they, why are they coming across so weak and ineffective? You are always quoting opinion polls how is it that the Tory lead is diminishing when one would have thought that it would increase.
  Now please don't throw another set of statistics, just simply answer that question.
  Incidentally I read the conclusions of the 2007 IMF report on the British Economy and it did not read quite as you describe.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Why is it when others quote the past Barry says we would rather go back into ancient history? Why does Barry dismiss others views as waffle? Why doesnt Barry answer questions posed about Cameron and the blue gang? Why does Barry call for serious debate and then resort to calling Gordon Brown a liar? Is Barry a spin doctor?
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Sid I would welcome hearing from the Tory leadership and what proposals they have for the economy but the only two things I can remember are a freeze on Council Tax for two years which means absolutely nothing and a fuel price index, which with the drop in oil prices would now have put up the price by 5p per litre. They surely must have other policies but at the moment nobody seems to be interested.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have provided a link to George Osborne's speech and that answers the question about Conservative policy. I am not going to be diverted by irrelivant bull. We are in jam and Brown is responsible.
  
  You clearly dont like figures, statistics and quotes because they provide a substantial body of opinion against Brown.
  
  You are still defending only by clouding the issue and not answering the substantive point about the economy.
  
  We have got where we are now entirely through the mis-management of Gordon Brown over the last 11 years. That is pertinent to the current debate. Brown makes claims about the economy that are not substantiated by independent bodies, in fact they contradict all the man says.
  
  So is the man who has presided over the economy over the last 11 years and currently has the job of running it a liar, deluded or both.
  
  If you deny he is either then surely you can come up with a substantial reason and demonstrate why you think the OECD, IMF, EU, ONS are all wrong.
  
  Liar,
  Deluded,
  Both,
  or reason.... come on justify your defense of him beyond a smokescreen and 'faith'. The longer you delay and the more you try to divert attention the weaker your case is for all to see.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry, I asked a plain simple question, where is the Opposition, no need for statistics and quotes and I'm certainly not trying to create a smoke screen why is the Opposition at the moment so un-newsworthy. It is not a trick question, do they have anything useful to say that people can relate to?
  Just answer the question, it's not difficult.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  It's not for me to defend Gordon Brown, I just dont see where the justification comes in calling him a liar. As I said before it is down to opinion and I think that most people in this country, rightly or wrongly, see him as a credible politician. I asked if David Cameron was Lamont's advisor at the time of Black Wednesday and was acused of raking up ancient history but isnt that a fact? Weren't there reports this week that if the government had adopted Osborne's auggestions for fuel duty it would be more expensive than it is today? I think that most believe that the two Tory boys are out of their depth. I very much doubt that Gordon Brown will be a guest of Her Majesty as were Archer and Aitken, Tories I believe.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, Sid.
  
  You should stop worrying about the opposition. David Cameron will do what he thinks fit, the big questions are about this hopeless Government.
  
  What DC was doing behind the scenes for Lamont is also totally irrelivant to the problems created in the last 11 years by Brown.
  
  I am not referring to matters of opinion either, but about matters of fact. If Brown is not a liar or deluded then there must be some substantive body of fact to justify what he has said about the economy.
  
  You have not been able to provide that, no-one has. The substantial bodies, and frankly there are none with more substance than those I repeatedly mentioned, including the British government's own statistical body, are all against him.
  
  We can only conclude that he makes it up as he goes along, not a way for a PM to behave.
  
  I ask again, what do you have that can provide Brown with even a fig leaf of justification for his claims? Fact not opinion.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Garry
  May I suggest you cut and paste the following link and read the transript of GB speech to leading Economists followed by a Q&A.Judging by these revered academia none of them appeared to disagree too strongly with GB's actions thus far.
  
  number10.gov.uk/Page17303
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry, what Cameron was doing behind the scenes for Lamont is relevant to his credibilty. You didnt comment on Jeffery Archer's spell in porridge, why is that? Can you give any examples, I'm sure there must be some, of when Margaret Thatcher or John Major said something and then did something else? Did that make them liars? And didnt Winston Churchill, when he was a Liberal, say in the Commons something to the effect of 'There is a fish that lives at the bottom of the ocean that has no heart, and that fish is the Tory Party'? I'm not sure that is what he said exactly but I think it was something similar, was he lying?
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I am rapidly coming to the conclusion Barry that you have no answer to my original question. To be an effective credible opposition you have to have the ability to oppose.
  What would the Opposition do about the high price of energy, repossessions, jobs and the economy in general.
  No statistics, no references to Brown just plain simple answers. The electorate is not interested in all the technical jargon they want to know what a Tory Government if elected say next month would do to improve their lot.
  Nothing political in that Barry.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You are still avoiding the substantive point in a smokescreen.
  
  Brown, the First lord of the Treasury, is in charge of the economy, as he has been for 11 years, and you are unable to defend his actions and his delusions.
  
  It is he who is, and should be, under the microscope. You are acting as if it is a Conservative Government that got us into the mess - no it is Brown that is the problem and you are the ones with no answers.
  
  Typical Labour - you lot always screw up the economy, 1950, 1967, 1977 and now, 2008. Every Labour Government has been a total economic disaster.
  
  Spend, spend, borrow and tax without regard to wealth creation.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Here's a couple of interesting quotes to follow up on the Churchillian one offered below:
  
  Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
  John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
  
  Men are conservatives when they are least vigorous, or when they are most luxurious. They are conservatives after dinner.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882),
  
  Pretty relevant in todays society.This is not a dig at my dear friend Barry(or Garry as I mistyped earlier..oops...sorry)
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry, how come when I mention the disasterous David Cameron's roll in the utterly useless financial management of the UK economy in 1992 by the idiots Lamont and Major you say it's ancient history and when you then mention the Labour Governments of 67 and 50 it's not?
  
  I'll answer your question about Gordon Brown; the current Prime Minister has made mistakes and is not perfect BUT he is regarded around the world as a heavyweight and a statesman, especially over his economic record. The UK people trust him and do not think he is a liar.
  
  What you need to realise is there are two sides to the story, posters here want to debate issues and have their views listened to and not be shouted down. You see our words and see waffle, is it ok if we read in your posts spin, spin, spin?
  
  You do yourself and politics a disservice by this bonkers or liar line. You admit that John Major wasnt a great PM, no-one is calling him names. Maybe you'll be able to tell us exactly when Margaret Thatcher went bonkers, or am I mistaken in that observation.
  
  You ask questions and dont like the answers, and when you're asked questions you dont answer them yourself. Do you want a return to power of a party with the likes of Aitken, Archer, Hamilton etc? I dont believe the public have really forgiven them and most still regard you as the nasty party.
  
  These are my opinions. I think they are valid. If you do not then address them seriously, but dont think you're opinions are always right - they are not. Be a little more grown up please, oh and drop the spin.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barack Obama's Kenyan aunt is in the US illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago.
  Zeituni Onyango, 56, referred to as "Aunti Zeituni" in Mr Obama's memoir, was instructed to leave the US by a judge who denied her asylum request, a person familiar with the matter said.
  Ms Onyango has been living in local authority housing in South Boston.
  Information about the deportation case was disclosed and confirmed by two separate sources, one of them a government law enforcement official.
  
  The information they made available is known to officials in the government, but it could not be established whether anyone at a political level in the Bush administration or in the McCain campaign had been involved in its release.
  Ms Onyango's refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, non-criminal breach of US immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system. Estimates vary, but many experts believe there are more than 10 million such immigrants in the US.
  Ms Onyango could not be reached immediately for comment and no-one answered the telephone number listed in her name. It was unclear why her request for asylum was rejected in 2004.
  Ms Onyango is not a relative who Obama has discussed in campaign appearances and, unlike Obama's father and grandmother, is not someone who has been part of the public discussion about his personal life.
  A spokeswoman for US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Kelly Nantel, said the government did not comment on an individual's citizenship status or immigration case.
  Ms Onyango's case - coming to light just days before the presidential election - led to an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations before Tuesday's election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors, the US law enforcement official said.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The point Sid, is context and relevance. You go on about spin, I am giving my views and asking questions that you cannot answer. I am pinning the blame for the extent and depth of the recession on the man who has been responsible for the economy for 11 whole years.
  
  After 11 years of a disasterous economic policy Brown has the brass cheek to make claims without any backing from evidence and you are happy to accept that without question.
  
  His actions since 1997 have a direct bearing on the current situation. To divert blame and to go on about the Major years is simply absurd after so long of Brown. As is your other tactic of making silly attacks on the present Conservative leader, nothing new, just simple misrepresentation based on lines fed by Labour HQ that we have seen before and are franky not worth bothering about due to their total irelivance.
  
  His state of mind is relevant to the current situation because he is Prime Minister and your views of the Conservative Party are totally unimportant.
  
  If you can't quote a body of evidence to back up your support for Brown's claims while I can offer a very considerable body of evidence against, does that not tell people something?
  
  You have blind faith, full stop....
  
  I bet you stand up at Labour meetings waving your arms in the air shouting Halleluya Brothers!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  ok barry, allow me to ask some questions that i have asked of you before, but you have chosen not to answer.
  
  what would you do about, and what do you think your party would do about
  
  tax credits for working people, pension credit, senior citizens heating allowance, free TV licence for the over 75's, the sure start scheme and concessionary travel for the elderly and disabled.
  
  once you have answered the above, i will have some more for you.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Howard I have been trying to get an answer from Barry on my question but all he can do is rant on about Labour and Brown.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave/Howard. I have made my own views known on this forum on issues, including many of those mentioned, many a time but they are frankly irrelivant.
  
  We are 18 months away from an election unless Brown cuts and runs and he will only do that if/when he sees things getting worse for him and even then, if he runs to form, he will bottle it.
  
  So Brown is the big issue here, full stop and I am not going to be diverted from my pursuit of the man who is unquestionable the most hopeless PM and was the most incompetenct Chancellor in living memory.
  
  Still no answers from you.
  
  Brown says one thing and major respected and politically independent bodies say the opposite. Who should be believed and what does that make Brown?
  
  I am starting tho think that you are not stupid enough to actually believe Brown yourself. You are, after all, exposing yourself to the truth through this forum.
  
  I can understand tribal allegance, fair enough and I can respect loyalty. You have a weak hand to play and you are doing your best trying to divert attention from Brown.
  
  I dont think its working and before Marek does it here is the latest poll results:
  Conservatives on 45%
  Labour on 31%
  LibDems on just 13%.
  This is a BPIX poll which is not known as being the most reliable pollster but at least it confirms the trend in most polls that Consevatives remain above 40% and are holding up well despite the torrent of Brown publicity lately.
  
  This bodes badly for Labour when the recession really starts to bite next year.
  
  We certainly wont let Brown get away with his Brownies, make no mistake. The public will also not be fooled either, they can allow themselves to be misled for a while but they do catch on. This is a view shared by the PH100 tracker on politicshome.com. I quote:
  
  """"""""""""""""Andrew Rawnsley, PoliticsHome
  
  The Conservatives are still on course to win a parliamentary majority at the next general election. Despite the narrowing of their advantage in recent opinion polls and some recovery in Gordon Brown's position, the PHI100 Election Outcome Tracker continues to point towards victory for David Cameron.
  
  Fifty four per cent of the politically balanced panel are currently expecting the Tories to secure a parliamentary majority. Just three per cent of panellists forecast that the election will produce a Labour majority."""""""""""""
  
  Brown's delusions and lies will be haunting him right through to the election. There is a whole universe of political bloggers out there ready to latch on to each and every new Brownie he tells. You are going to have your work cut out to divert attention form that lot and I will continure to highlight this man who has brought the UK economy to it knees.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry, I DON'T vote Labour, never have, I am simply asking plain simple questions which you still refuse to answer and again create smokescreens by slagging off Brown. Incidentally, I don't vote Liberal either.
  Now Barry as a active Conservative, treat me like you would if you were out canvassing for Charlie. There you are standing at my front door and there is me asking,what you regard as irrelevant questions, are you going to tell me that or are you going to think, simple soul, doesn't know anything about the IMF, OECD, GDP, doesn't deserve a vote, pure peasant, more interested in his stupid gas bill, the price of petrol and the NHS.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Again Barry why can you mention 1967 or 1950 and I cannot put forward Cameron's role in the early nineties forward?
  
  As I said it's not for me to defend Gordon Brown, and I certainly dont have a Central Office feeding me spin stories like you appear to have. And what's this about me standing up at Labour meetings, why on earth would I do that?
  
  The point I have been trying to make is that on the whole the economy has been handled well by this government, and I believe that most people in the UK agree with that. You are trying to pin the blame yes, but why? I was making the point that both sides can and do make mistakes, you seem unable to see that. You say I'm being irrelevant attacking Cameron and then you mention Brown's state of mind, double standards and desperate spring to mind.
  
  There have been successes over the past 11 years: independence of the BoE, low inflation, the minimum wage, the New Deal, windfall tax, reduction in Corporation Tax, Gift Aid etc. The public do see that they've done alright and dont want to see a return of bust and semi bust of 1979-97.
  
  Why are my views of the Conservative Party totally unimportant? Why is it ok for you to attack other parties and other peoples views? I think my views on the Conservative Party are important and I wont be bullied from voicing them. People reading our posts are more likely to think you have blind faith dont you think? Maybe you should just post what Central Office send without reading it first.
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I agree Sid the continuous slagging off of the Labour Party is ok but as soon as you mention the Conservative Party any detrimental reference to them is considered irrelevant. I don't think i'll get any form of sensible answer, just a smokescreen of statistics, the truth is they cannot reply because they don't know.
  There is no effective credible Opposition at the moment and it shows, even the ever hungry media have lost interested.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  we will have to wait patiently for another bulletin from the central office machine.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  closed on sunday!
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Ah, it's the simple questions that everybody wants answers to, that the Tories conveniently evade. Confounded peasants always ask stupid questions.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  it may be better if we peasants all gathered together and had a collective forelock tugging session.
  i am reliably informed that it does not make us go blind
• Johnboy, Wingham wrote:
  I've read the ding dong going on between you guys. Come on reach a conclusion cos you're just going round in circles now. Move on. You're never going to change eachothers point of view. Really let's face it the EU now run our country, like it or lump it, so no verbal jousts between Labour, Tory or Liberals is going to change things one iota. These parties are just playing the fiddle while Rome (or in our case Great Britain) is burning. Now shake hands and jump over the cliff which is where the rest of us are heading.
• max headroom, dover wrote:
  are you saying we are lemmings any way hs wouldnt like it one bit they would have to put a fence up to stop us.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well, well - take a day off and you lot are in frantically posting but, saying nothing.....
  
  Issues of Conservative policy (discussed here many times) can wait simply because the economy is THE big and important issue. How we got into the present state and what role the present Prime Minister played in this are important. The errors of policy and mistakes that were made will need to inform future policy, but it is clear that Brown is still making exactly the same errors and has not learned.
  
  That is why this issue is important and why matters pertaining to the Conservative Party have no immediate relevance. George Osborne did make a very good critique of this situation and offered an alternative, I provided a link to the speech. I have also in the past referred to what I would do, (not necessarily the same as official Conservative policy but based on Conservative principals.)
  
  I do not post anything from Central Office incidentally, (I dont receive anything to post!)
  
  Dave: taking you up on what you asked, it is not the job of a canvasser to engage in doorstep conversation or to convert anyone. A canvasser only needs to establish those who will definately be voting for their Party which requires a brief yes/no answer and not all yesses are believed and marked down as such...
  
  I am enjoying the present bloodsport and it will continue. Gordon Brown is a disaster for the UK and what you have shown, yet again, that you are unable to provide a defence.
  
  Guido asked on his blog, bonkers or liar?
  None of you have been able to come up withy any kind of substantial defence of his claims about the economy. Brown has no backing for his claims from his own ONS let alone any independent international body, the opposite in fact.
  
  I can therefore conclude that the answer to Guido's question is....both...
  
  This issue will not go away. I am facing the consequences of his economic mismanagement daily in my occupation. I will carry on highlighting it on a regular basis and will not be deflected.
  
  Yes, I will discuss Conservative Policy and throw in my own views which are not always the same, but in my own time and when they become relevant.
  
  Right now the spotlight is and for now should remain on this hapless Prime Minister and his wretched Government.
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I think what we're after is a debate on the economy and the Tory Boys arent up for that, they just want to sling mud and sit back but it just makes them look smug. We dont have to defend Gordon Brown, and he has looked far from hapless when addressing the issues over the past week with the French President, Germany's Chancellor and in the Middle East.
  
  Some here want to know what the Tories would do as an alternative and are being greeted with smugness and spin. Barry please dont throw your comments in when you dain, havent you got a bin? I believe that the Tories will use the 1979 blueprint as their economic plan and will do as then: put up tax [VAT]; cut overseas aid; cut public spending [that's what this proposed freeze on Council Tax is about]; cut public sector jobs; let the market rule [no intervention to keep jobs]; and cut higher rates of tax.
  This will be a return to what ordinary families faced between 1979 and 1997 - bust followed by semi bust followed by bust.
  
  And obviously Barry doesnt want Cameron take the credit for misery of Black Wednesday, or Aitken, Hamilton and Archer to take the credit for the moral highs of the great Tory past but if the debates here and at an election end in a smug comment or an arrogant quip the people will be reminded of the past wont they.
  
  Isnt is funny that Barry is quoting Guido at this time of the year? He was an enemy of democracy and we all know what happened to him.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  seems like not much interest in messrs obama and mccain.
  
  wasted your time there paul, most of us are politicked out after the st rads drama only a few days ago.
  
  you show an opinion poll there giving an 11 % lead to the boy wonder, but in reality, the marginals are all about 1 or 2% either way.
  
  the word is that it will be a massive turnout, which surprises me, as i cannot see either candidate as great statesman.
  
  the later push for votes has been really lacklustre, obama rattles on about change????
  mccain just talks about how he will cut taxes, failing to mention that the economy cannot afford it.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah indeed Howard I might well be wasting my time, but right now trying to move us on from the current impasse... was amused by that 'politicked out' after St Rads line. The good ol US couldnt compete with such local intensity!
  
  But yes today is the day for the US Presidential Election. I thought McCain made a seriously bad speech last night calling on America to carry on with the policy of "defending America from its enemies" and more "weve gotta fight on" which sounded very Republican and very George Bush. All along he had tried to distance himself from George Bush as nobody in their right mind would vote for anything Bush-like right now. So to my mind that was a pretty bad clanger as he tries to continue his supposed late surge. Voters are sick of the endless wars, the famous novels of the 20's and 30's have become all too real, and are now almost certain to vote Obama.
  
  Polls still show a heavy advantage for Barack Obama.History is being made today.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I notice that an interesting thread has been started by Marek in the letters club pages on this subject, so discussion might get fragmented between the two threads.
  
  This perhaps might be inevitable if non-members of the letters club want to post on this subject, as I hope they would. Not sure what to suggest here PaulB to help the topic along!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek has posted a lot on opinion polls and a lot has been said on this forum about Labour’s improved poll rating since before the elections.
  
  There has been some detailed analysis of this trend published in the Independent. I quote:
  
  “”””””””””””””"Labour's rating rose from 26 per cent before the party conference season to 31 per cent after its gathering in Manchester in September.
  
  But its overall level of support did not climb any higher after the banks bailout last month, said John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who looked at the results of nine surveys.
  
  The weighted average of the polls taken in October shows the Tories on 43 per cent (down one percentage point on September), Labour on 31 per cent (up four points), the Liberal Democrats on 16 per cent (down one point) and other parties 10 per cent (down two points). These figures would give David Cameron a majority of 62 at a general election.
  
  'The mood of new-found optimism that seems to have enveloped the party at Westminster in recent weeks certainly seems to be out of proportion to the scale of Labour's recovery,' said Professor Curtice.
  
  'Labour has simply moved from being in dire trouble to being in deep trouble. But Labour's modest revival has certainly not done the Liberal Democrats any good; their poll rating is back down towards the bottom of its usual range.'"””””””
  
  I would suggest that things can only get worse for Labour over the next year or so, particularly when applying logic to the above polling evidence.
  
  The FT reports that among the EU's largest economies, the UK would be the worst performer next year, when its economy would contract by 1% as forecasted by the EU Commission. It also says that our economy will struggle to grow 0.5% in 2010. Perhaps those who are supportive can comment on that in relation to Gordon Brown’s claim that we are ‘best placed’ to cope with recession.
  
  The economy will remain the main policy issue through to the election. The big question really is will Brown decide he will minimise Labour losses by cutting and running with an early General Election. I expect speculation on that to grow but I do not think he will.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i wonder why Mr Mccain wishes to subject himself to 4 years of unbelievable stress and pressure at the age of 76?
  
  incidentally the st rads turnout was about 50% up, i bet the americans do not manage this.
  
  has anyone noticed that ralph nader is standing once again?
  
  he seems to have stood many times and never got close, models himself on our victor apparently.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The US turnout seems to have been huge Howard. I dont have any figures on front of me but it was astonishing to see people all across the wide nation queing round the block in order to cast their vote. This is the American psyche in action. Give them something to vote for and they will get out there. The turnout was so large in some areas they could hardly cope.
  
  In my wildest imagination I could not envisage the cirizenry of the UK queing round anyones block in order to vote for either Gordon Brown or David Cameron. We are not engaged in the same way. We might vote if its not raining, or we might vote if there is no football match on TV, or...well, you get the idea. Although people are interested in politics here, it simply doesnt get the nation's motor running in anything like the same way. Maybe its the lack of razzamatazzz!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  paul
  the queues were mostly due to malfunctioning electronic equipment.
  
  the turn out was only 64%, big for the US, but much the same as over here.
  
  most people voted before they went to work or sign on, which made the
  bottlenecks worse.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well then Labour retained their Westminster seat of Glenrothes.
  
  But what are the political implications on the country:
  
  I found this in The Guardian this morning:
  
  """""But Labour keeping a seat that has hitherto been Labour for 60 years possibly says as much about the SNP's maturing into political incumbent as it does about Brown's maturing into international economic guru. The SNP's candidate runs the local council, something Labour ruthlessly exploited to show had increased the cost of social care for a few hundred elderly voters from £4 a week to £11 an hour.
  
  Likewise, the SNP is the largest party at Holyrood. The government says its injection of £37bn into Scotland's largest banks, HBOS and RBS, would not have been possible if the SNP's central political objective - independence - had come to pass. The Glenrothes byelection may come to be the moment the SNP stops being an upstart and starts being the establishment.""""""""""""end quote.
  
  They are right, this is a very different picture to what we face in England and it is England where the election will be won or lost.
  
  I think this is actually good for the Conservatives because it keeps Brown at the helm of Labour. As we go deeper into Brown's recession with a very difficult year ahead the picture for a General Election will work in the Conservative's favour. We will continue to point out the role played by Brown in making these recessionary times worse than they should be.
  
• Guest 660 wrote:
  I like that Barry,Gordon Brown is good for the Tories,yet another Labour Victory and although we dropped our percentage we actually got more votes.
  SNP were up because they know that the Tories are not a credible opposition not just in Scotland but everywhere.Little by little Labour are on there way back
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Thanks for that lads.
  
  I am beginning to wonder now though if this section has outlived its natural life to some degree. We appear to be just going round and round in circles so am wondering if change is needed.
  
  I would be interested in advice from contributors on the best way forward.
  
  We have had a good run. There have been a huge amount of tip top quality postings, very impressive and great to see, and more than 58,000 views in a relatively shortish time. But maybe we need to re-invent ourselves and do something different as the limited remit is leading to an element of sameness.
  
  This is NOT to say that we are turning our back on Politics on Doverforum. Far from it. But we could for example open a new Political Section within the Letters Club. Our we could abandon this section and talk about Politics as and when it crops up in the other two OPEN pages...the General Page, and the Letters Page. Doing it that way would mean wider discussion embracing a wider remit.
  
  I would be interested to hear what contributors, or indeed readers think...all ideas welcome.
  
  either post your opinion on here, its open to all responsible contributors, or indeed email me on the address above.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  PaulB
  
  I see your point.Maybe a Political forum with the capability to start different threads.ie govt , local and town politics. Therefore allowing individuals to post thoughts Westminster,Whitfield and wherever locally.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  yes, PaulB, you make a good point, discussions on politics do get disjointed when you are on one aspect, then to have interventions on other subjects, all of which you might want to follow up.
  
  A letters club politics sectuion would be good as long as 'non-members' can post on a more general forum.
  
  Back to the news of the day though: Glenrothes.
  
  Giving it some thought over breakfast I think there is another positive for the Conservatives in Scotland.
  
  It could be that the SNP bubbles has burst and there are Scottish seats that are Conservative/SNP contests. Given the recent admission about the vulnerability of the Scottish economy, by the SNP, if independent, this should boost the Unionist cause and hence help Conservatives in these places where we are not squeezed and Labour are.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  The news of the day is Glenrothes. I've been giving it some thought over my brunch and I think there is nothing positive for the Conservatives in Scotland. There showing was so poor that they lost their deposit.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  But Sid - unlike myself with my opposite view, you do not give any reasoning.
  
  The loss of a deposit for us in Scotland, when in a classic squeeze, is hardly any justification for your claim. You need to do better than that.
• garyc, deal wrote:
  hi, tried putting this in letters club, but had problems, i supose this is political, which i am definatly not, but i feel i need to post.
  Well BarryW, I am not surprised with your comments, but it does make me sad that you can get it all so wrong. The honest, hardworking men that have given so many years of loyalty to DHB do not deserve to be treated like this. I know them well because I worked along side them for many years; they do not want to go on strike and given the choice, won’t go on strike. They don’t make profit out of their wages, they pay their bills and buy necessaries from small business’s to survive, I do not know any of them that” have a place in south west France” but I do know a few who go camping there. The more workers of this country that are paid less, then that means less money they will have to spend at small businesses.
  You talk about these workers as if they are already on strike, and I am tempted to ask, did you enjoy the defeat of the Miners? I am sure you did.
  The facts are simple, DHB can afford to keep equilibrium within its workforce, and it could keep present standards and keep loyal to its workforce and change nothing. It has the revenue and the forward planning to keep its workforce if it chooses to do so.
  It’s all about giving its workforce to another employer so they CAN make more money from them.
  That is wrong and immoral. You rightly tell us about workers in small business’s working long hours and who do not have the opportunity to strike but you do not have the right to use them as an excuse for people to stand up for their rights.
  I am the first to admit that in the 70S and 80S, unions had a stranglehold on this country and this was not healthy and could not continue but we have now swung the other way, the proportion of wealth in this country is unacceptable and there is too much greed. We all have to accept that there will always be bosses and workers, rich and poor, conservatives and labour, able’d and disabled people etc, that does not mean we cannot get on with each other; or work together, we do not have to be enemies, we can work together and do what’s right for everyone, and not just for the selected few.
  As BarryW says” They cannot afford the negative 'them and us' attitudes of many who work for big employers”.
  BarryW, you are the biggest instigator of “them and us” you clearly feel you are on a higher level. That’s fine with me as long as you stick to facts and not your opinions, you are entitled to your opinions as is everyone else, but that does not mean your opinions are right. They are simply your opinions.
  What do you mean “I hope the Managers are able to fill the gap and are able to keep traffic moving? That is a serious question? that I would like you to answer? If you have sympathy for workers in small businesses, do you not have the same sympathy for workers in larger business’s who don’t fit into your quorum?
  If my personnel circumstances were different I would like to think I would be still employed by DHB, and if the workforce are forced to go on strike then I will be on the front line with them and I would be pleased to speak to you BarryW to explain why I am there.
  Exciting things are happening in Dover, we should be all working together to see that the Sea Change Development succeeds,
  DDC are working hard to change Dover Seafront and bring in much needed visitors and revenue to the town, and DHB have pledged £250,000 , which is commendable but not when it is trying to shed its workforce due to expense.
  BarryW, instead of condemning the workforce of DHB for doing something they do not want to do, why don’t you condemn DHB for what they don’t need to do?
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Gary - First of all I certainly enjoyed the essential victory of the working miners who played a role in defeating the extremist militants led by Scargill.
  
  While I can sympathise with individuals who lose their jobs I cannot extend that sympathy to a group, or groups, that decide to take the negative and destructive action of going on strike.
  
  I am no fan of DHB but a strike would certainly get them my sympathy and strikes threaten all of our futures particularly when we are in difficult economic circumstances and Dover's is worse than many areas.
  
  My lack of sympathy for these strikers is simply born out of an appreciation of the extremely difficult circumstances that millions who work for small businessses face and those running these small businesses. As I say these people have to take a far more pragmatic, intelligent and sensible approach to protect their jobs. The pensions, wages and conditions of employees of DHB are far better than those enjoyed by the employees and owners of the small firms to which I refer. I can understand that they do not want to lose their relatively priviledged working conditions/pensions but that is no reason to strike.
  
  We are just at the start of a long and difficult recession and a strike will do us no good and can only damage strikers and many others.
  
  Make no mistake this represents a trend that I expect to continue. The taxpayers must not be expected to cough up the huge on-costs of maintaining the kind of pension schemes to which so many in the public sector belong, far more than they themselves are able to contribute to their own pensions. I expect there to be more problems such as this in future and the Government has not yet even started to touch the surface of the serious problems that public service pensions provide for all of us.
• garyc, deal wrote:
  BarryW, you are so typical of a minority of people who simply won’t listen to anyone’s opinions, if it does not fall in line with your own.
  Fact, Kent Miners voted to take industrial action, as did every mining area, more than a year prior to the actual strike, if, thatcher and the NCB tried to shut viable pits. That’s why she ordered Cortonwood colliery to close, knowing we would have to strike to try and save our pits. We, the Kent miners informed Scargill that we were on strike; he never led us into a strike.
  Fact, DHB do not need to shed its workforce, for streamlining, cost or any other excuse it wants to come up with.
  Fact, DHB workers are not on strike so stop referring to them as strikers. They do not have” privileged working conditions/pensions” they have bent over backwards over the last 5 years to accommodate their employer and keep their jobs and deserve retrospect consideration.
  Fact, I know all about small business’s going to the wall, I was one of them. That does not mean other workers should be prepared to give up their jobs with a tip of the hat, Sir.
  Fact, I agree “the taxpayers must not be expected to cough up the huge on-costs of maintaining pension schemes”, nor should it be expected to cough up for huge payouts for managers and bosses who cause deaths in hospital or thousands of jobs in all industries, but sadly it does happen. Greed comes to mind yet again.
  Fact, you seem to be laying a lot of blame for this countries problems, at the feet of the DHB workers. They just want to keep their jobs, what’s wrong with that?
  
• S, Dover wrote:
  It would be nice if someone from DHB got off their backside and cleaned the beach every now and again. It hasn't been touched for months now and is looking extremely messy. Maybe they don't like getting their hands dirty I don't know but througout the summer I found it very depressing to see. I picked up loads of rubbish myself and complained to the harbour board about it but they didn't want to know. Ha so much for the green environmentalist award DHB recieved some weeks ago. It meant nothing.
  I know cleaning of the area has been subbed out to a private company but nobody seems to take charge and tell them to clean it.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Way to go GaryC! With you there!
• DT, Dover wrote:
  Imagine if the brave soldiers we are remembering this coming week exercised 'individualism'
• howard mcsweeny, dover wrote:
  thanks for your contributions gary, they are precisely what the majority of dover's citizens think.
  
  it will be interesting when the election comes around whether the blue candidate will echo the views of barry.
  
  i think not.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  OK Gary you like some facts...
  
  What about the fact that Scargill and his thugs use intimidation, bullying and sheer terror to get their way.
  
  The real heroes of the miners strike were those who went to work in the face of that bullying and the police who fought to keep the peace and enable those to go to work who were determined not to be intimidated.
  
  The fast is that strikes, even when they achieve a short term gain for the strijers, alway result in those who went on strike losing out in the long term. Strikes have an adverse impact as well beyond the employer, into the broader economy.
  
  You may well have been one of those striking miners, Gary, and may well feel bitter over your defeat. But when such bullying and intimidation (in which you probably played no part, as it was only a minority) plays such a large part towards achieving its ends, then that cause is lost from the start and deserves to be and must be defeated.
  
  To encouraged others in such irresponsuble action as going on strike is wrong. I hope and trust that if DHB emplyees do so that they will not follow the miners lead and resort to bullying and intimidation.
• DT, Dover wrote:
  They sound more like information supplied by the right wing media rather than facts Barry.
  
  I think that most of the people on here supporting the DHB workers makes the situation more 'right' don't throw around terms like 'wrong' so definitely as if such concepts are fact. Righteousness is afterall based in a sense of collective consensus. Which is why Mr.Elphicke should be interested in representing the views of local people, rather than skirting around the issue in an attempt to toe his party line in the process of 'managing' the views of his potential constituents. I'd like some to represent me, not manage me! (which is another inconsistancy within the Conservative party...being represented by individualists)
  
  Back to the them and us concept. Bullying and intimidation is exactly what got people in this country to the position of 'them' Ironic really!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  DT - I just noticed your comment on individualism.
  
  It is true that the individuals in the forces need to conform into a disciplined unit and 'fit in'. But that does not eliminate individualism totally, far from it.
  
  There is a great deal of individualism required in the Forces. In particular in the Special Forces.
  
  The circumstances in which the Armed Forces operate are such that a sense of discipline and teamwork are essential but boosted by individual skills.
  
  Warfare back in the time of the Peninsular War and Waterloo did require troops to stand in lines wearing red coats, firing into an enemy marching out in the open and in so doing seeming to be no more than being a part of a single mass. Even then though the value of individual thought and action in warfare was being recognised with the formation of the Green Jackets and skirmishers. These really were the origin of today's special forces, though some might go back as far as the Knights Templars for that!
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  What you say about the 'right wing media' does not make it wrong DT.
  
  We all could see on the media the mass of rioting thugs trying to prevent others from going to work, fighting running battles with the police. There were also cases reported locally where working miners homes were vandalised and families threatened. Unforgivable.
  
  This was not just the 'right wing media'.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Thugs on all sides Barry. There were some police who behaved appallingly and there are those who still have the scars to prove it. Words like right and wrong don't help. We have no business approving or otherwise - what we should do is try to understand how all parties lost enough faith in each other to come to talk of strikes. Management also bear some responsibility for failing to engae and motivate their workforce sufficiently. that's not "backing down" or "giving in" - it should come much earlier and is called planning ahead, and that's proper management.
• garyc, deal wrote:
  There you go again BarryW. What facts did you give in your last thread? None at all, all you have written again is your thoughts and your blinkered take on the miners strike. Yes there was the odd miner who, through desperation, lost control. I am not condoning that but having been there, I do understand it and I don’t, expect you to.
  Most of the so called thugs you are referring to were simply not miners, as were many police on the picket lines were not police.
  If “Strikes have an adverse impact as well beyond the employer, into the broader economy” your comments not mine. Why then, did thatcher inflict the strike on the miners? Because make no mistake about this comment, thatcher DID, invoke the strike on the miners, (proof can be supplied), to beat the trade unions of this country? And I probably am, in your eyes, one of the thugs you are referring to because I was arrested during the strike, I was pulled out of the picket line because I asked to speak to a lorry driver and when I was refused, I asked to speak to the pc’s superior, which as a union official I was entitled to do so, I never got to speak to his boss, I was simply pulled out and arrested, fortunately for me, when I appeared in court, in all, over thirty were arrested that day, and in the mayhem that occurred that followed, the police could not remember who arrested who and for what charges, so the pc who gave evidence against me, whom was not the arresting officer, and could not remember any of the events leading up to my arrest, the judge rightly, found me and all bar one, were found not guilty.
  You seem to have this silly idea that people want to go on strike? I can honestly say I have never met anyone who wanted to strike.
  I have never encouraged anyone to go on strike nor will I ever encourage anyone to strike, I paid the ultimate price in being forced into that miners strike. However I do know that DHB workers will not strike unless they have no other option and if they too are forced into strike action, they won’t be alone, and they will have plenty of support.
  As for your real heroes, a young Striker from a Nottingham pit drove over to Norwich on his moped, it took him five hours, to address a nurse’s meeting, when asked his first question” How many men were on strike in Nottingham?” he replied, “All the men are on strike in Nottingham”. After a short silence he then said “There are people working still, but we don’t call them men”
  Greed kept them people working, they were set up to break the strike and it worked. But even they were let down and saw their pits shut, as well as ours.
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  GaryC - keep posting!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Gary, having been that deeply involved in Scargill's war against democracy you are hardly unbiased.
  
  You are clearly underplaying the sheer thuggery of the extremists.
  
  The miners allowed that fool Scargill to lead them up the garden path and ended up getting what they deserved.
  
  It is sad that those who resisted Scargill's bully boy tactics also ended up losing out because of the eventual loss of their jobs, but those closely associated with the strike got what they deserved.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  that could easilybe translated as thatchers war against the miners.
  
  the nottingham miners were tricked into thinking that their jobs were secure.
  
  serves them right.
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Barry - the thuggery was universal, but at least the miners had the mitigation of job and home losses. The police behaviour was at times Mugabe-esque. It serves little purpose, however, to throw blame around like drunken punches. It was a horrible time, many bullies involved (including in High Office) and the outcome has been to the detriment of communities and working people. Management has to bear reponsibilities - that is the role of management. If mment fail to engage and plan and guide, that is their fault. Despite being a manager, maybe because of, and with a background throught the ranks, including a period of time as a union steward, it is easy for me to see a rounded picture. Blame is irresponsible, understanding is the adult way forward.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  There is no mitigation Bern for what the militant miners were doing.
  
  I failed to mention murder before. What about the taxi driver who was murdered (in South Wales, I believe) simply because he ferried working miners to work? A concrete post was dropped on his cab from a bridge.
  
  Scargill had a political purpose from the start and was keen to bring about a confrontation.
  
  He refused to hold a national ballot making the strike illegal. He therefore lacked all moral authority and that is why he had to use intimidation and bullying to force men to strike. Remember the flying pickets?
  
  Why do you think he refused a ballot? He did not think his membership, in the privacy of a voting booth, would vote for a strike, that is why.
  
  The Kent miners were among the most militant and were one of the first areas to go on strike, supplying 'flying pickets' to intimidate other areas into joining the strike.
  
  A local working miner who, from memory, lived along East Cliff was subject to the most terrible intimidation.
  
  We have seen Gary's attitude towards those miners who really cared for their families and went to work. They are the real men in this dispute, it required real courage to deal with what they had thrown at them by those who lacked their courage and buckled under to the demands of the militants.
  
• garyc, deal wrote:
  Barry, Scargill was portrayed in the media, as a Genghis Khan type figure to detract the suspicion away from the real person who carefully planned the strike. That was supposed to fool the general public, not its own members Barry.
  There does not seem to be any point in two people having a thread when only one answer’s the questions from the other, so I will finish this thread by answering your questions and accusations, then leave the topic where it belongs, in the past.
  Scargill was just an ordinary person who made some predictions; one was “thatcher wants Kent Coalfield shut down” That came true. It is not an unbiased comment, it is a fact.
  If Scargill had called the strike, as you say, why would he have called it to start in March, the beginning of the summer?
  Be very careful when you accuse me of something that I have neither said nor implied, you do not know me and you do not have the right to second guess what my feelings were then or now. You are the only one to have made aggressive comments, about thugs and militants and people getting what they deserve.
  If you read my comments properly you would have noted that “I did not condone acts of violence, I recalled the words of a striking miner, and I have never implied that I did not care about any family that was caught up in that strike. I felt for everyone in that strike because we were all used for one common end and it’s about time you stood your ground, stand up like a man and be honest.
  You know who was really responsible and the reasons why the Miners were destroyed and we all know you’re proud of it.
  I am not willing to play your playground politics anymore, there are far more important things going wrong in our country now, which needs addressing. We need to eliminate greed and bring some common sense back into running this country and that will only be achieved by everyone sitting at the same table and making decisions that apply to everyone and not just the chosen few and yes Barry that is only my opinion.
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Gary, at no point have I cast aspertions on you or suggested that you supported violence and made sure that I did not do so as you are correct, I do not know you.
  
  You did say: """Greed kept them people working, they were set up to break the strike and it worked. But even they were let down and saw their pits shut, as well as ours""""
  
  That was what I was referring to with reference to your attitude towards the working miners.
  
  What you have carefully not mentioned was Scargill's refusal to call a National strike ballot.
  
  He was after a confrontation with the Government and knew that with a secret national ballot he would lose his chance.
  
  So, caring little for democracy, he did not call the ballot and relied on intimidation and bullying to get miners to comply. Kent was at the forefront of the militant extremists, among the first on strike sending 'flying pickets' elsewhere to intimidate others into complying.
  
  You cannot get away with placing any blame anywhere other than where it belongs, Scargill.
  
  If he had called a ballot and obtained a vote in favour, however misguided, he would have had a moral authority and it would have been far more difficult for Mrs T to defeat him. But then he would never have got the vote, hence his actions.
  
  I, personally, do not hide the fact that I detest the Unions having seen the damage they did in the 70's. I am glad Scargill made that error which led to the destruction of the miners as a political force. The UK is far better off as a result.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  
  Just to change it from striking miners and the current argument, I have received this from Daniel Hannen, who is an MEP for this area.
  
  xxx EU budget failed for 14th year xxx
  
  For the fourteenth year in a row, the European Court of Auditors has refused to certify the EU budget. Not that anyone seems to care. Even in Britain, people are responding with a shrug so dismissive as to be downright Gallic. Yep, the EU is corrupt: et alors?
  
  I have written before about our indifference to Euro-fraud and about how, strangely enough, I see cause for hope in our cynicism. Think of it as a marriage. So long as there is bickering, the relationship is alive: each partner cares enough about the other’s point of view to want to change it.
  
  But when the arguments give way to indifference, the plate-throwing to scorn, the rows to contempt, the marriage is over.
  
  If, as a people, we have given up on any hope of reforming the EU then, in our hearts, we have already determined on separation.
  
  Still, I wouldn’t want you turn away from this without feeling even a spark of anger. So please have a look at this list (www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top100waste.pdf) , compiled by Open Europe, of the top 100 scams that have been funded by your money over the past year.
  
  A final observation. Britain is the second-largest net contributor to the EU budget after Germany. If we withheld our subs, we’d have enough to give the entire country a two-thirds reduction in council tax. At a time when all three parties are casting around for a way to fund tax-cuts, I thought that might be worth mentioning.
  
  
  Daniel.
  
  
  Why do we accept so much corruption in the EU - it is our money that's being wasted after all.
  
  If we're all indifferent to the waste and expense, then we only have ourselves to blame - don't we ?
  
  
  
  
  Roger
  
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Barry - your need to blame is unhelpful. Gary, quite rightly, is drawing this to close, but I had to add that it is you who talks about thugs and blame. Gary, and I, and many many others, know the real cost to communities and families, and we know it is much more complex than one-trick-pony blues can imagine. It is not black-and-white, squared-off or even now a closed issue, the repercussions were felt and are felt for many years, and will be for years to come. You talk about the only ones to be brave as the ones who continued working - it truly isn't that stark: there were many acts of bravery on all sides, acts of brutality on all sides, compassion from many quarters. Our duty is to understand and learn from the episode, not condemn of bluster.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  roger
  
  i have raised the subject of auditors rejecting the books of the EU on this forum for about 5 years now, harking back to dover web days.
  
  i do not know why people seem not to care.
  
  should this have been a private business, the fraud squad would have
  been called in by now.
• garyc, deal wrote:
  I will answer your question but this is the last,
  Barry, you give far too much credit to Scargill, every single area in the british coalfield, held an area ballot and every last one of them, even Nottingham, which amounted to a national ballot, voted to take industrial action if “NCB tried to close any viable colliery.
  To answer your question properly, you have to go back to the late 70s, when NCB decided to change the national bonus scheme. They wanted to change it to a fixed amount, per tonnage of coal removed, regardless of area geology or any other criteria. Sounds simple and easy doesn’t it. Until you take into account that coal seams in Kent were on average 2ft -3ft thick and in Nottingham coal seams were 10ft or more thick. I will leave you to do the sums, if allowed to be implemented Nottingham miners would earn massive bonuses and divide them from the rest of the coalfield. So Kent objected to this change and we asked for a National Ballot. The result of that Ballot was a unanimous vote to reject the new bonus scheme.
  In your way of thinking, and ours at the time, you would be forgiven in believing, that would be that, democracy rules. No, you see that did not fall in line with the government plans for dealing with the unions and they insisted that the NCB, introduce the bonus scheme anyway, even though it was rejected in a National Ballot. Kent again objected to this decision and it was decided to allow Lord Denning to decide and guess what? He overturned our National Ballot. So you chuntering on about the importance of a National Ballot just doesn’t wash Barry.
  Why was the government so insistent on pushing this scheme through? that was as simple as the bonus scheme itself, when the right time came for them to take on the miners, the miners in Nottingham, because of their high wages and with a false sense of loyalty to the NCB, for giving them decent wages, they were forced into carrying on working.
  At the time, I personally was very upset with them, not for their greed, but because they voted to take industrial action and then reneged on their vote.
  We were not flying pickets, we were part of south east midlands coalfield and we were entitled to speak to our colleagues in Leicester and other areas in the Midlands, which we did until the government decided we were gaining support for our cause and promptly and illegally, stopped us from traveling through Dartford Tunnel.
  In hindsight, we did makes mistakes, thatcher became increasingly frustrated, because, in spite of a dirty tricks campaign by the management, her plans to quietly force us into a strike, just wasn’t working, it wasn’t working because going on strike was always going to be our last resort and she new that . she decided that March was her perfect time to start the strike, the start of the summer, she knew of the area ballots to take industrial action if a viable pit was shut, that’s why she closed Cortonwood Colliery, and she knew that gave us two options, one was to turn our backs on our colleagues at Cortonwood or follow through with our ballot and take industrial action. She knew which one the Kent Miners would choose and I am still proud of that decision. If “Kent was at the forefront of the militant extremists” another favorite label of yours, we would have pre-empted thatcher’s timing with our own, winter strike.
  Had we made that decision, who knows, we might still have 3 pits in Kent, with all our communities still intact, less un-employment and social problems and much more, small business’s being more stable and DHB workers not having to face the same fate as us, perhaps.
  Stating that the UK is better off for destroying thousands of families and communities and their future, just about sums you up Barry.
  This is my last comment on the subject, this has opened up wounds that I thought had healed but I realize now they have not.
  
• bern, dover wrote:
  Take it easy GaryC - those wounds take an age to heal. Communities and families were broken by that era. I was working as a nurse in the NHS when the Milk Snatcher ascended to the Throne, and we all knew then, as sure as Savlon Stings, that that was the end of the NHS as we all cherished and valued it.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Are you not thinking here of the old pithead ballots under the glaring eyes of Union bullies?
  
  Intimidation, full stop...
  
  The simple fact was, no matter how you dress it up, there was no national strike ballot at all, let alone one done with secret ballots by an independent body to ensure it was conducted fairly.
  
  That is a matter of record and fact.
  
  Scargill refused to call one, defying calls from the more moderate mining regions such as Nottingham.
  
  The strike was illegal and, as you know, the illegal strike resulted in the Courts seizing funds from the Union and a good job too.
  
  Yes, in raising this you have opened up scars. You have reminded me why I so detest the Trade Unions and of the damage they did to this country.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  By the way, Gary - you are giving Mrs T much too much credit here.
  
  Admire her as I do I do not for one moment think she masterminded this as you say.
  
  If I thought she had then she would be even higher in my estimation!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Lets relax this a bit now lads as its not very good to re-live very painful memories . I appreciate Gary was a miner and lived through those difficult days first hand. Its much more real and different when you live through these things first hand, rather than just theorising about various aspects from afar. So it might be an idea now to drift onto Gordon Browns possible tax cuts or something similar. Yes Gordon and Dave are vying for pole position at the moment as to who can offer us the best tax cuts. Can this be true, tax cuts aplenty? I must drifted off in angelic sleep and woken up in Shangri-La.
  
  By the way Gary thanks for sending over that piece and picture about the Miner statue relocation destination. Will get that up shortly all being well.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  good idea paul, memories of those bad times are still raw to those who suffered.
  
  the tax cuts!!
  i listened to the BBC chapess(who seemed in the know) report that our gordon was planning tax cuts in order to kick start the economy.
  
  the opposition chap then replied that he was against the idea of spending ones way out of a recession.
  
  he then said that it would be a good idea to put money back into peoples pockets by way of tax cuts.
  
  maybe the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum?
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Yes Howard, just another example of how useless the Tory Opposition is They used to be indecisive but now there not so sure.
  God help us all if Cameron and the Bullingdon Boys get into power.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I think you should listen to exactly what was said and represent that properly. I may not have seen/heard the programme to which you refer but I do know the nature of the debate.
  
  Labour, it seems, may be correctly saying that tax cuts are necessary but will be borrowing to fund them...
  
  Conservatives are saying that tax cuts are necessary but they must be funded properly and not by more borrrowing.
  
  There is also the matter of which taxes should be cut. Which taxes will have the greatest impact in helping revive the economy. Not all tax cuts are equal. There has been a lot of speculation over that and we can debate it further when more details are known.
  
  One thing is for sure, Brown will approve tax cuts only through gritted teeth.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  On today's Politics Show Andrew Neil savaged George Osborne over the Tories tax plans. Neil said the proposals were tinkering and that the idea of giving firms tax breaks for taking on the employed wouldnt make much of a difference because firms aint hiring. He also rubbished the statement that their plans wouldn't add to public borrowing. Osborme just blustered and spluttered.
  
  Oh for those who dont know, George Osborne is the Shadow Chancellor. Probably wont be soon and he is a former member of the BullyMore Club previously referred to.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  The Managing Director of Dennehy, Weller & Co who are financial advisors based in Kent was interviewed on BBC24 this afternoon. He was asked about the tax plans unvailed by the three major parties today and gave an assessment of some of the main points. He was then put on the spot by the interviewer and asked whos plans were the best. He was obviously not expecting the question but then after gathering his thought replied that Labour's were and he thought we should back Gordon Brown. It was good to get an independent viewpoint.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Well speaking as a financial adviser.... I dont know yet.
  
  I have been very busy training someone today and have not really had a chance to read and study what is being said so I will comment later when I have had a chance to look at it in more detail.
  
  I will say that my first impression is one of mild dissappointment as I am firmly in the 'be bold' camp. We will see later though.
  
  You have quote someone in my industry who I have frankly never heard of Sid so perhaps I should also post some initial reation I have just picked up on the web.
  
  This is from The Independent and written by someone who I have never regarded as being sympathetic to the Conservative cause. he has actually been rather harsh on George Osborne lately.
  
  """"""""""""""""""""""""
  Bonkers tax-cutters
  By John Rentoul
  
  From punk tax cuts to bonkers tax cuts. I could not believe what Gordon Brown was saying this morning, that Conservative tax cuts didn't count because they were "funded" - that is, paid for by savings elsewhere.
  
  Never mind that the mechanism by which David Cameron and George Osborne hope to pay for their fiddly, complicating tax break for companies hiring the unemployed is purest sky-pie, namely the savings on benefit payments.
  
  For Brown to advocate unfunded tax cuts - that is, paid for by more borrowing - suddenly takes us into the political economy of Alice in Wonderland.
  
  Nick Robinson says of this morning's rival news conferences held by Brown and Cameron:
  
  Both men have an interest as presenting this as a big political divide. It may in truth turn out to be much less so.
  
  I don't agree. I thought the divide was small, because a week ago all that Brown was proposing was to bring forward a few big infrastructure projects. That meant that there was little difference between cosmetic Tory tax cuts and Labour spending increases. But now Brown hints at big tax cuts paid for by higher borrowing. It is a complete reversal of his previous rhetoric, even if he hasn't stuck to it since about 2003.
  
  I cannot understand the current presentation of Brown as a statesman suddenly come into his own, while Cameron and Osborne are portrayed as schoolboys who have responded to the economic crisis erratically and uncertainly. Higher borrowing - on top of the much higher borrowing that kicks in automatically because tax receipts fall in a recession - will make matters worse in the long run.
  
  Brown is making it up as he goes along, as he has done since his golden rules were rewritten to suit his political ambitions, only now it is serious, and seriously wrongheaded. While Cameron and Osborne have been sensible and prudent, backed by "serious people" such as Terry Burns and Nigel Lawson.
  """""""""""""""""""""
  
  We I may end up a bit disappointed but this response is most interesting, particularly the last paragraph.
  
  I will post more on the proposals when I have had a chance to study and absorb them. Tomorrow some time.
  
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  It's a pity Barry hasn't any experience of or views on tax or fiscal policy. He's probably off checking his inbox for information from Tory Party HQ. Any bets that he will reckon the Tory plans are really, really good and the Labour and Lib Dems ones aren't?
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  speaking as the main in the street(no, i have not been chucked out again)
  the logic of the government struck a chord with me.
  
  should tax cuts go straight to the people that have the least disposable income, then that money will go straight back into the economy as it will go straight into retail enterprises rather than bank deposit accounts.
  
  surely that is what stimulates things and keeps people employed and thus earning and spending money.
  
  i feel sure that there is an economist somewhere with a very long or foreign sounding name that will back me up.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid, I dont think such pitful, weak and plain silly personal jibes add anything to intelligent debate do they?
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I'm no financial expert, but whether there's direct tax-cuts, tax-credits, cuts in stamp-duty, vat rate-cuts or whatever, that these are funded through savings elsewhere (and there must be millions wasted by the Government that could be cleared up) rather than more and more borrowing ?
  
  As any person or household knows, money borrowed has to be paid back and you have to pay back more than you borrowed in the beginning.
  
  As I posted on here a few days ago (answered only by Howard), there's been trillions and trillions of higher taxes since 1997, but no real benefit on anything - what's better now ?
  
  Those on benefits are better off (they don't pay taxes)
  
  Knife/violent crime
  Police on the beat
  People scared to go into hospital in case they get the hospital acquired infections.
  Our school kids are less educated than in the whole of Europe
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I have had a chance now to look properly at these latest proposals from George Osborne.
  
  On the positive side they do represent a reduction in tax that is not funded from borrowing and that has to be good. Also at a time of economic slowdown anything that reduces the cost of employing someone must help, even if only at the margins. I note that the CBI welcome these proposals and certainly I think they would have more impact with larger companies than small ones where survival is the game, rather than taking on more staff. It certainly cannot harm and only help during a recession.
  
  On the negative side I find it too complex and we really do need to simplify things. We have had far too much excessive complexity from this Government and I do not want the Conservatives follow suit.
  
  Personally though I would like to see a much bolder package funded by cuts in public sector spending. Make no mistake there is a great deal that can be done to cut spending as there has been no real spending restraint and controls for the last 11 years. There are many wastfull Government projects that could immediately be cut to start with. ID Cards and Personal Accounts immediately come to mind as just two that are highly wasteful, of dubious benefit and could save a large amount of money. A public sector recruitment freeze would be another good start in order to reduce or eliminate the need for redundancies enabling re-deployment. The only exceptions here should be the Armed Forces and Security Forces because we are at war. Public sector spending should be frozen in all departments with spending on education and health plus Defence protected from actual cuts. I would not cuts capital infrastructure projects and regeneration as this would cause problems in a recession.
  
  Overall with such measure a huge amount could be saved and the proceeds, initially used to fund tax cuts.
  
  I would target these cuts at small businesses to help them survive (Brown increased their tax rate at the last budget). A reduction in VAT might also be included to help the public more widely. These though MUST be funded by spending cuts and not borrowing.
  
  A bolder, funded, package is possible.
  
  I cannot see the Government acting responsibly and I suspect any tax cuts they make will be paid for by borrowing. Done from such a high base that would be a disaster waiting to catch us as soon as the economy starts to lift, slowing the eventual recovery. Borrowing has to be repaid, remember.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Barry
  I'm no expert but I would have thought that a cut in VAT,Petrol Tax,Road Fund Licence and Alcohol tax would be a way forward and help stimulate the economy before any thoughts about cutting Income tax.
  
  Windfall taxes on the energy companies could help offset some of the deficit.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Marek, I did say VAT is one I would reduce alongside reducing small business corporation taxes.
  
  I agree there are other measures that should be taken, for instance it would be mad for the Government to go ahead with its big increase to vehicle duty.
  
  At the end of the day tax cuts should relate to the level of spending cuts that can be made, to do otherwise would be irrresponsible.
  
  I note today that Labour Minister McNulty has admitted that any tax cuts the Government might bring forward would be short term and they would have to rise again. To increase them once the economy starts to recover would just dampen the recovery (at best). If the taxes are funded from borrowing, as we suspect the Government will do, then they will indeed only be short lived.
  
  Sustainable tax cuts are needed and they can only be that if they are balanced by spending cuts.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  the suggestion abounds that cuts in publicspending surely this wouldadd to the unemployment figures.
  
  the government insists that more public spending is the answer, especially on capital projects.
  
  the money that they speak of had already been allotted, the difference being that the projects are brought forward.
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Still we could freeze Council Tax for 2 years,a cut of about 10 to 15 per cent,that would really get the ball rolling,wouldn't it Barry,all that work that is being started in Dover would slow down even more.What a splendid idea,just what we really need!
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Taking John's point, has the Dover District council got enough slack to cut between three and five million pounds? That's roughly what the Tories so-called 'freeze' on council tax would mean to the council's coffers.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - I specifically said that capital construction and infastructure projects should not be cut.
  
  I also said that there should be a freeze on puiblic sector recruitment enabling redeployment to eliminate or reduce redundancies in the public sector.
  
  Look at it this way.
  
  If the public sector does not take a share of the burden for the recession then it will all fall on the private sector.
  
  It is only the private sector, the wealth creating sector, that will eventually power us out of the recession and back into growth.
  
  If you want to lengthen and deepen the recession then you burden and damage the private sector.
  
  So there must be cuts to public spending. After 11 years of massive and unrestrained growth there is a mass of waste to be cut. More than that it is fat with expensive projects (id cards and personal accounts to mention two) at various stages in development, many of very dubious quality. Cutting them can save £billions.
  
  This money passed back into the pockets of people to spend and in reducing the burden on small businesses in particular will help reinvigorate the economy.
  
  To just borrow more money for temporary tax cuts, money that will have to be repaid, plus interest, through increased taxation as soon as the economy picks up is madness. It would slow down that recovery as it begins. McNulty has admitted as much.
  
  This is too important for ill informed, daft trivialising of the issues such as some of the posts we have seen.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  The recent mailshot from our local Conservative MEP, one Daniel Hannan, complains at length about the widespread corruption amongst MEP's , and indeed in Brussels generally. However Daniel need look no further than his fellow Conservative MEP (called after our namesake town) one Den Dover. Dover is now infamous but of course for all the wrong reasons.
  
  The EU Parliament has now insisted that he repay more than £500,000 in...and one has to be carefully how one words this... in unusually attained benefits paid to his wife and daughter.
  
  Is this some kind of dodgy world record as that is one heck of an amount of money. How did he manage it on such a huge scale. The mind boggles. Gravy train indeed. Slurp! Slurp! So glad therefore that the EU are insisting the money be repaid.
  
  And the latest news on this, this very morning, is that following internal party discussions with David Cameron, it has been decided to expell Dover from the Conservative Party. That's Dover the person, not Dover the town!
• Guest 645 wrote:
  PaulB
  
  I found this article published in yesterdays 'Grundian'.
  
  David Cameron today expelled the Conservative party's former chief whip in the European parliament who has been found guilty of breaching Strasbourg rules.
  
  The parliament decided that Den Dover, who resigned as chief whip in June, had breached its rules and demanded that he pay back just over £500,000.
  
  Dover will face a fraud investigation by the EU's anti-fraud body, OLAF, into claims that he siphoned £758,000 of public money to family staff through a secretarial provider over nine years. OLAF has the power to ask police to carry out searches.
  
  Dover, the Conservative MEP for north-west England, was expelled from the party by Cameron this afternoon, minutes after the Tory leader was informed that Harald Romer, the general secretary of the European parliament, had written to the MEP to tell him he had fallen foul of parliamentary rules.
  
  Romer said Dover had made two mistakes:
  
  • There was a conflict of interest, referring to Dover's decision to make payments to family members;
  
  • There was unaccounted expenditure involving just over £500,000. Dover has agreed to pay the money in full back to the European parliament.
  
  I think Romer should have said ''Dover made 3 mistakes'' The third being he got caught...lol
  
  
• Barry Williams , Dover wrote:
  David Cameron is to be congratulated on the immediate and firm action against Den Dover.
  
  As for Dan Hannen, he is the scourge of those on the gravy train and has made many an enemy exposing abuses. He is without a doubt one of the very best of the MEP's.
  
  Back to the economic argument. Fraser Nelson has placed an article advocating the same cost cutting medicine as me. In fact his prescription is uncannily like mine, except that he goes into much greater detail in a very interesting article.
  
  Here is an extract:
  
  Quote"""""""""""""
  The NHS budget must be first. It has been fed like a foie gras goose for the last few years: its budget has more than doubled while the quality of the service — to put it politely — has not. There is a case for a period of stability, during which the system might digest the amount pumped in. Its budget could be kept at inherited levels for three years and it would still rank among the best-funded health systems in the world. Even growing health spending in line with inflation would save £7 billion a year, compared to the trajectory set by the government.
  
  On education, too, Mr Brown can claim the dubious achievement of doubling spending in real terms while English schools have plummeted in world performance tables. Not only are we being overtaken by other countries, but international studies show standards are falling here. So it is — staggeringly — that extra money has coincided with a decline in standards. The Conservatives need not continue down this path. As any independent school will tell you, £6,200 per pupil — broadly the per capita spend they would inherit in 2010 — is enough to provide excellent education in a state system with 22 pupils per class.
  
  Money is no longer the key issue in education. By letting independent companies set up and run state schools, the Tories would achieve through competition and local institutional vigour what Mr Brown has failed to do by cheque-writing and Whitehall diktat. Increasing the education budget with inflation would still encourage a new breed of state schools and save £4.1 billion a year.
  
  But as the budgets of core public services are protected, failing government schemes must be axed. Chief among these are the Regional Development Authorities, which have proven an expensive and comprehensive failure. They were set up to improve the competitiveness of various English regions. Yet nine years and £15.3 billion later, one can search in vain for a list of palpable accomplishments. Examples of waste are legion, from the remuneration packages of their chief executives — often paid more than the Prime Minister — to the cost of junkets like the £20,000 which Yorkshire Forward spent sending staff to a film festival in Dubai…...
  
  …….Much could also be saved by finally igniting the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ that Mr Brown promised in 1995. English Partnerships is one of the larger ones: it largely duplicates the work of the RDAs with an inexplicable £221,000 going to its chief executive. The head of the British Waterways Board is paid £280,000 — some £100,000 more than six years ago. Designed to cut out the inefficiencies of government, quangos have replicated their extravagance.
  
  They are all ripe for consolidation or abolition. Bogus pressure groups could be abolished, such as Postwatch (£15 million) the National Consumer Council (£3.5 million) and Energywatch (£15 million). As the TaxPayers’ Alliance points out, their duties could be taken over by grassroot organisations if the need were strong enough. It is hard to put a precise figure on how much this would save, due to the appalling lack of data. But David Craig, author of Squandered — an indispensible book chronicling the sickening waste of the Brown years — estimates that cutting quango budgets by 10 per cent would save £6 billion a year.
  
  Then take the London Olympics: please take them. The £4 billion bid has mushroomed into a £14 billion budget, as construction firms tested the old maxim that there is no more gullible paymaster than the government. An Austerity Olympics run on twice the original budget would save £7 billion. It might lack China’s dazzling opening sequence, but the world would forgive us. By that time, the Brown bust would have left Britain with more debt than Churchill took on to win the second world war.
  
  The list could be extended — yet, intriguingly, Mr Osborne is wary of compiling his own. He has a few tax cuts already in the pipeline matched to specific spending cuts (such as scrapping identity cards) but does not want to publish a detailed hit list. He is still haunted by memories of the 2005 James Review which identified £35 billion of waste — a figure Mr Brown instantly seized on to warn voters of ‘deep and painful cuts’.
  
  End Quote:
  
  As I have said before Osborne needs to be much bolder in his approach. I understand why he is reluctant to say the big 'C' word and speak of large scale spending cuts, but without it his economic prescription lacks the cohesive punch that it should have.
  
  I think that the public now understand that we cannot go on the same old way living on more and more borrowed money. They will respond far better to a series of bold proposals.
  
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Sounds eminently sensible Barry.
  
  Those savings could surely then afford to give some tax cuts - direct or indirect ?
  
  I'm not sure about scrapping SEEDA and EP (not yet anyway) as they are helping with the money to regenerate Dover.
  
  Daniel's emails he sends, have so much common-sense in them they're always a pleasure to read and as you rightly say, he tries to high-light the corruption in the EU, especially in the accounts and expenses.
  
  It is a corrupt body and like all corrupt bodies, it should be done away with.
  
  I didn't vote for a Federal Europe, I voted for a "common market" - trade, not politics.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  so it seems that george osborne is reluctant to use the big "c" word.
  
  seems a pity, as at least he would get a job on radio 2 after he gets the boot.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Very good Howard - great answer.
  
  But wasn't it the big "F" word for radio 2 ?
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 656 wrote:
  After many years of watching Question Time it was a great pleasure to be there in our very own Cruise Terminal here in Dover. The charismatic David Dimbleby put us all at ease with an informal chat before the show and was extremely entertaining.
  
  Great report and pictures there PaulB, you're on the ball, Mike Webb certainly done us proud by bringing Dover into the sway with the question covering the Olympics, I really enjoyed the evening.
• Guest 663 wrote:
  Had a chance to catch up with Question time after a long day in london I found some of the subjects debated close to home e.g houseing and the drinking issues a good cover of the evening for those who couldn't make it.
• Beth, Dover wrote:
  Was that Francis Rossi ive just seen coming out of the town council? lol.
• Mandie, Dover wrote:
  lolololol Beth. I think you saw Chris Precious lololol
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Beth
  
  You saw the Sun newspaper today then ?
  
  I'm surprised no one else saw the article - I'd have thought there'd be a furore about it.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Roger check the letters page,only 2 threads on it.
• sue Nicholas, river wrote:
  It has been on the radio and a lot of people have bought the Sun It was a good topic of conversation at DDC this morning .There is nothing we can say because Vic doesnt get embarrased Still each to their own .Just dont talk to me about DDC wasting money I have a few spare copies .Im quite good at throwing paper darts
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Reading John Redwood's blog today, it sounds very familiar:
  
  Quote"""""""""""""
  Listening to Rosie Winterton last night on the Any Questions Panel, I became angry about the way Labour handle every criticism and every difficult issue the Opposition and the public put to them.........
  
  .............They then decide to lie about those who put the criticisms.
  
  In recent encounters Labour has sought to claim that I wished to deregulate mortgage banking, that I wanted banks to go to the wall, and that I wish to cut expenditure on new schools and Colleges.
  
  Each one of these claims is a lie.
  
  As readers of this blog will know, I proposed tightening the regulation of capital and liquidity and rebuilding the Bank of England’s powers to control the mortgage banks and other banks in the summer of 2007. I have set out many options to keep the banks afloat, including timely warnings of the need for more liquidity in markets before Northern Rock went under in order to prevent that collapse. I have never suggested letting a major financial institution go into bankruptcy. I have never proposed cutting expenditure on schools or colleges.
  
  I just hope that the public is at last seeing through this propoganda technique of Labour. I do not go round attributing false views to them. I have enough on my hands trying to make the public aware of all the damaging things they do do, without having to make things up to make my case."""""""""""""End Quote
  
  That does indeed sound very familiar indeed. Labour are setting about their 'scorched earth' policy, just as I predicted, with insane increases to borrowing from an already excessively high level. George Osborne has highlighted today the risk the Government is taking of a complete sterling collapse. The run on the pound so far is enough to demonstrate the real confidence overseas investors have (or rather dont have) in the running of the UK economy.
  
  All Labour can do is to lie, about debt levels and about opposition policies. A sad and wretched bunch.
  
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry hasn't Osborne now found himself in a corner? Should Sterling collapse it could be interpreted that Osborne has provoked this and should it recover his predictions have somewhat floundered.
  Once again the Shadow Chancellor proves himself to have no real policies as an alternative to Labours' and at a time when all parties should be looking for a little stability in the money markets he puts his size 10 in it yet again.
  
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Ah BarryW surely nobody in their right mind listens to John Redwood anymore. His voice certainly wouldnt reach beyond the already blue-ly convicted. Whether you see borrowing our way out of recession or not as the way forward, is just a matter of idealogy. Some say its the way to go, others dont. It may be right, it may be wrong. The summarisation is that nobody knows for sure. Because as has been said a number of times only recently by the bods that know, or appear to know, that this crises is not quite like any crises that went before. We are all operating in the dark to a degree therefore.
  
  I thought it was rather disappointing of George Osborne to talk down the pound today suggesting it is in danger of total collapse. How is that helping us in our hour of need?? While others stride the global stage trying to fix things, he is at home trying to take the wheels off!
  
  His own position, I speak of George Osborne, is in jeopardy due to his poor performance over this period. Rumours abound that he may be sidelined... with a more weightier David Davies taking over.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Not ideology PaulB - economic common sense. Brown seems set to repeat mistakes made as recently as 1990 by Japan.
  
  There is no doubt that we are in a very desperate state of affairs economically, far worse than most other countries. Not me saying this, the IMF, OECD, EU and so on. No-one can deny looking the the figures produced by the Office of National Statistics than Brown was borrowing when he should have been repaying debt. No-one can keeep borrowing without paying a price.
  
  I believe that Osborne was right to speak out about the huge errors being made by HMG. We have already seen a run of the Pound and a collapse of sterling would be a consequance of Brown's economic policy, not some comments by his political opponent.
  
  Dave - I have already made a comment about this. I believe that the Opposition needs to be more bold in advocating large scale public spending cuts. Sadly Osborne is being more timid than I would like. That is really why there appears to be a weakness in the opposition case, they are being too cautious. They are being 'sound' within some tight parameters they have drawn about themselves, trying not to provide any hostages to fortune and a campaign of lies by Labour. I think we need to confront them and make the case for more fiscal responsibility.
  
  As for John Redwood. He certainly lacks a certain public charisma but there is no doubting his fine mind and intellect. We need his input but we just dont want it in front of the cameras....
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - cant we have an edit facility on this page? Ttoo many typos in my last post!!!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Regarding a run on the pound.
  
  PaulB - The Dollar rate has dropped form just over $2 to £1 to around $1.48/£1 in a very short time. The Euro is also at its stronger position against the £, ever.
  
  This is a huge and serious fall and really is a demonstration of what investors think of Brown's economic mismanagements. More of the same, as Brown seems to want, will damage us further.
• Beth, Dover wrote:
  I think members of the ddc need an eye test .Didnt anyone see the UNLIKELYNESS between this joker conman to Francis Rossi ? page 17 in the sun newspaper again today with a picture of the man in question. How on earth did they think he was the real Mr Rossi? Not saying names to who was to blame for this blunder but im getting you all a specsavers appointment asap!
• Guest 660 wrote:
  Beth it was not Dover District Council
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  Beth - it wasn't DDC it was DTC - Dover TOWN Council.
  
  I'm sure if you talk to the Town Clerk there, he will sort out the times for the eye tests !
  
  Mind you, the first person to be duped is not now a Town Councillor.
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Beth, Dover wrote:
  my apologies. To Whoever made a blip like that !
• Beth, Dover wrote:
  PLEASE CAN I URGE EVERYONE WHO BLOGS ON HERE TO VISIT THE SUN NEWSPAPER ONLINE TO SIGN THE PETITION FOR JUSTICE FOR THE HEARTBREAKING TREATMENT OF THE TRAGIC BABY P.
• Beth, dover wrote:
  jhg. nice meeting you earlier today.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I'm glad Cameron and Osborne didnt represent our country at the gathering of world leaders in the US the other day, they would have made the UK what the two of them are - a laughing stock.
  If the pound takes a bashing on markets over the next few days some of that will be down to his polilticking. He wouldnt condemn hedge funds speculating on some of the banks before the government stepped in and now he is virtually encouraging speculation on our currency at a time of [global] financial fragility.
  The Lib Dem's Vince Cable said on the Politics Show taday that Osborne's commented were ill judged and his logic was not clear. I think that's being kind. We all know Osborne's time is running out and his desperate tactics and spin are only about him trying to save his skin and point scoring, Cameron should do the right thing and sack the clown now.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  according to that socialist rag "the mail on sunday" our chancellor is taking lessons in "talking like wot we do", in order to gain popularity.
  
  might come in handy when he signs on for jobseekers allowance.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  i should have said "shadow" chancellor, of course.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Mrs T had voice training Howard - quite common among politicians. I cant blame George as his slightly squeeky voice undermines what he says.
  
  Sid, not very knowedgable about economics are you? Know a lot about Labour spin though!
  
  I know this Government would prefer not to have an opposition but as a democracy we do have one thankfully and the job of the opposition is to question and challenge the Government.
  
  This cranky Government is blind to what really needs to be done and is addicted to borrowing. The consequences are serious.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry, I recognise that the Opposition is essential in a democracy but the key word here is 'opposition.' You must admit that it is sadly lacking at the moment, you only have to read the comments on Conservative Home to see that even Tory followers are questioning Osbornes' lack of flair and his ability to convince the electorate that his policies, such as they are, will cure the nation's ill-health.
  I am afraid that Osborne has become wounded over the 'yachtgate' affair and it shows.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry I dont understand your attack. I was using Vince Cable [a Lib Dem]to back up my case, from a programme I watched. As I said before some of your posts look like they are send to you, others seem to support my observation. Labour spin, from me? Just because I do not agree with your viewpoint you shouldn't think I am your opposite.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Whether DC keeps GO or moves him, replacing him with Ken Clarke for instance, is a matter for him and the move would have some merit. It is irrelivant to you and indeed the immediate economic problems.
  
  This is a triffling matter compared to the mismanagement of the economy that GO is warning about.
  
  At least GO and I can use evidence and quote the OECD, the IMF, the ONS and even the EU to support our economic case against the Gocernment, you can only really quote Labour and Libdem politicians.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Quotes, like stats, can be used to prove almost anything! Knowing quantities of either isn't a great way to prove a point, although it is useful in squashing debate...........
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry I think you will find that Ken Clarke has indicated that eveif the job was on offer he would be unlikely to take it. Your own stance seems to be changing toward Osborne a little, from the saviour of the nation you now say that there might be some merit in replacing him.
  You can quote all the statistics you like and extract the parts which make your case look better but the fact is we have no real Opposition. They simply are not forceful in getting their message across, if anybody really knows what that message is, they lack conviction, personality and as far as Osborne is concerned distincly uneasy when questioned. It is with little wonder that some Tories are likening him and the boy Cameron to the Chuckle Brothers.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I think you'll find Barry that I try to put my opinions in context, someone that you also do. I feel that whereas I may attack your opinions you have now felt it necessary to attack me.
  I'd quote Tory politicians if they were relevant; I saw Alan Duncan MP on the TV today and he was asked if he and his party would support tax cutting measures that the government may announce next week. He wouldnt answer, just waffled. He was asked three times. Will they support a stimulus to the economy or try to talk it down. In my opinion the Tories are playing games for their own gains.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Dave, to say that there would be some merit in a heavyweight like Ken Clarke taking over from GO is not itself an indication of any change of attitude towards GO on my part. Neither does it indicate support for doing that, there is also considerable merit in GO staying in place. I consider that to be a matter for DC and merely suggested the name as he is one that some people are touting around.
  
  GO quite rightly pointed out the problems of extra borrowing and the risks the Government runs by pursuing its strategy of increased borrowing from an already excessivley high base.
  
  HM Treasury has said so itself:
  “Loosening fiscal policy when the underlying structural fiscal position was poor could damage consumer and business confidence, thus having the opposite effect to that intended.” (HM Treasury, Analyzing Fiscal Policy, 1999)
  
  I wont provide a long list of other, more recent quotes to back that up, there are many to choose from.
  
  Bern. You may be uncomfotable about statistics because they do not support your pre-concieved political stance. Indeed it is true to say that statistics can be manipulated and with his off-balance sheet borrowing and the way he ignores public sector pension debt, Brown is one at home in doing that. That is different though to the massive body of very weightly bodies and evidence that is against Brown. The hard fact is that their is little, or nothing to support Brown's claims on the economy.
  
  
  
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Blimey Sid, if you regard mentioning that you do not know much about economics as a personal attack, what on earth would you do if there really was a personal attack on you...
  
  Perhaps you could demonstrate your economic knowledge then (without googling it) by explaining exactly what hedge funds are and what they do... Just to show that you do know what you arer talking about. Also you could explain why comments from an Opposition spokeman, doing his job, would send the £ plunging, specially as today it has strengthened from the low base it had fallen to before his comments!!!!! What about this co-called convention GO has broken, one that Ken Clarke a former Chancellor has never heard of.
  
  Please, Sid, lets raise this debate to a higher level and have a technical discussion on economics policy.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  You dont get it Barry so I'll have to spell it out to you. I do not have to justify, or even back up, my opinions. They are well respected opinions, in my house at least. And I certainly dont need to prove my knowledge, or ignorance for that matter, to you. I have as much right to put forward my opinions as you do. If we disagree with what one another puts we can post a reply. You seem to want to shift the tone to wanting to belittle me and my comments, maybe that is a tactic that has worked before. It's not that I have a thin skin myself I just dont think you should attack others.
  
  With regard to Osborne I didnt mention the unwritten convention. I did say he wouldnt be the shadow chancellor at the next election and I think I'll be proved correct. If I am proved right please feel free to acknowledge it here.
• bern, dover wrote:
  I am not at all uncomfortable with stats - I deal in them all the time!! It is how I know what to do with them...! They are only truly useful in bending perceptions and digging up evidence to support ones own stand or fight ones own corner, or vice versa if dealing with opposition. It is a skilled task and used constantly!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I think you are missing the point Sid.
  
  To have a discussion and debate you need to do more than merely exchange opinions but engage in a full exchange in respect of why those opinions are held. When making points I will give reasons and a background for the point I am making, that enables you and others to challenge the basis of my opinion. This is the difference between an intellectually satisfying and challenging debate and an exercise in mere point scoring.
  
  If you dont want to give background and reasons, fair enough, but that does not stop me from challenging you to defend, more adequately, the positions you take.
  
  I am certainly not wanting to belittle you, but if that is how you are feeling then perhaps the route of the problem is in the cause you are defending. I certainly will belittle the Labour Party by exposing the weaknesses in the case it places before the public and take great pleasure in doing so, nothing personal to you.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid.
  
  You used Conservativehome.com to justify what you were saying about Osborne. (an example, by the way of what I am saying is needed for good political discussion).
  
  You might want to look at this page on ConHome.
  
  h ttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/11/the-tide-is-tur.html
  
  To get it on this site I placed that space between h and ttp, so cut/pstae and delete the space to navigate.
  
  
  
  
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  Barry, it was me that was quoting from Conservative Home and I merely read the comments of about 100 Tory faithful.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Apologies Dave.
  
  The actual contributors will be Tory but comments from 'one and all' can be made and inevitably there are many 'trolls' among them. The '100' to who you refer (not that I have noticed so many and I log in there frequently) will include many 'infiltrators'.
  
  One official contributor has made a posting that GO should go, certainly, and that is referred to in the page I provided a link to.
  
  If you read the page on the link then you will see what I mean.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sorry Dave, I meant to add the following (cant edit!)
  
  On politicshome.com the PH100 survey has come out in favour of Osborne, saying he was right to raise the issue.
  
  One very good point, of course, if as Labour say he lacks authority and gravitas over economic matters, there is no way his comments can cause a run on the pound. Labour cant have it both ways. As I have said earlier it is absurd to suggest an opposition politician can have such an effect.
  
  You can see the PH100 on this page: www.politicshome.com/#4578
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW Im afraid the Conservatives do not appear to be right with their current strategy. Barack Obama said on TV today that the right way forward was to borrow to spend right now and not worry too much about life 18months or 2 years down the line. 'It was the right thing to do' said the new political superstar. Although there will be pain down the line, the pain could be far worse if we dont follow this spending path. Also, the CBI today on 'Politics Today' said somewhat reluctantly, as Andrew Neil had to drag it out of them...that borrowing up to a point and spending was the right thing to do.
  
  So although the layman in the street cannot tell which philosophy is right, nor can the experts by the sound of it, the general sway of informed opinion is that the government is right.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB. So you are saying that the solutions adopted by Japan in the early 1990's was right then? Sorry but you just have to look at events to see the truth behind that. We should learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
  
  The CBI representing larger businesses may well see some advantages to that kind of Keynsian approach but the BCC and IOD think differently, as they do on issues such as the Euro.
  
  I could provide at least 3 weighty bodies to disagree with increased borrowing for each one in favour.
  
  Note the quote I provided from The Treasury, produced when Brown was Chancellor. Funny isnt it how what he was saying then no longer applies juts because it suits him!
• Bern, dover wrote:
  Barry - be careful chucking weighty bodies around - they can fall forwards or backwards!!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  do these 3 weight bodies live in an ordinary town, doing an ordinary job?
  
  somehow, i doubt it.
  we can listen to the opinions of many economists living in the lap of luxury, the ordinary person knows that money has to be pumped into the economy to prevent personal family disasters that could lead to anarchy.
  
  it seems fairly simple that if more money is available through tax cuts to the lower earners, they will plough it straight back into the high street, especially this time of year.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Howard - are you saying anarchy would be a bad thing? Come the revolution......................
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  interesting how some deal with complex issues by trivialising them.
  
  One aspect of what has gone wrong over the last 10/11 years with our economy has been the way Brown has disincentivised savings.
  
  I have seen no-one else, other than me, focussing on this aspect, until today. The case I have been making is that people with no savings become ever more dependant upon borrowing, making them more vulnerable when times get bad therefore deepening any recessionary impact on the economy. This is an area of my personal professional experience so I know exactly what I am talking about as I am advising people on these matters daily.
  
  Brown set about to methodically run down the UK investment and savings base as a deliberate act of policy. If anyone wants to query it I can provide a whole set of policy actions since 1997.
  
  Now the FT is saying the same..........QUOTE................
  
  By Martin Jacomb
  
  .....But how sensible is it to encourage borrowing for personal consumption? Keynes, it is true, wanted people to spend in a downturn and loathed the idea of increasing savings at such a time. But he was not visualising a society that was already seriously over-indebted.
  
  The government has been spending well beyond its income, and the econ­omic stability for which it claims credit has been based on this. But individuals have been borrowing and spending lavishly too.
  
  Credit card and mortgage indebtedness has increased remorselessly. In the past 10 years outstanding mortgage debt has increased from £450bn to £1,200bn while consumer indebtedness has risen from £100bn to more than £230bn, making the UK population the most highly indebted in Europe. Most of this has been financed by credit markets fed by the savings of workers in Asia.
  
  The accent has been on consumption and the message now is, apparently: let this continue. However, although consumption is the purpose of all econ­omic activity, the problem is that if everything produced is at once consumed and nothing saved, trouble is bound to follow. Gordon Brown, the prime minister, not long ago called for an end to the “age of irresponsibility”, but now the signals are for yet more borrowing.
  
  If this downturn is to be avoided by boosting consumption, financed by borrowing and unmatched by increased production, the present difficulties may be mitigated but there will be trouble ahead. For if demand based on borrowing is increased, with sterling battered, the hideous spectre of inflation looms once again two or three years ahead.
  
  Meanwhile, the UK savings record is pathetic. Household savings as a percentage of disposable income have declined from 7 per cent (not an impressive figure anyway) to zero over the past 10 years. The government has been encouraging this and has undermined saving over the past decade...............END QUOTE
  
  While I have been agreeing with the need to stimulate demand through tax cuts and interest rate reductions, I have also beeen warning of inflationary pressures that will be stacked up by loose monetary policy.
  
  A part of any long term strategy, once we see some initial 'lift off', must be to enourage, once again, saving and investing and not be forced into tax rises because of the need to repay borrowing done to create these short term market stimuli.
  
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  it would be nice now and again if you gave your own opinions rather than plagiarising somebody else.
  
  on the subject of trivialising you refer to personal debt being higher here than in a lot of other countries.
  
  rather a simple answer to that, most other countries rent their home, we tend to buy, thus having an official debt.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I think that the Chancellor will announce in his pre-budget report next week countermeasures that will be quite convincing.
  I note that John Grieve Smith is quoted today as saying ''Hopefully, the government will fight the recession with the same dynamism it showed in tackling the credit crunch, and should announce a convincing set of countermeasures in the forthcoming pre-budget report''.
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard, do you not actually read my posts then?
  
  I am always giving my views and plagiarise no-one. Incidentally, look up the meaning of the word and you will find that where comments are attributed (as I do when I quote a third party source) it is not plagiarism.
  
  The whole point of my last post was to point out that the FT are now saying something that I have been saying for a long time.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid - I see reports today that there are arguments going on between Brown and Darling over the pre-budget report. Brown wanting to continue his age of irresponsibility while Darling is trying to tone it down...
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  At last...... I knew it was coming, all the signs were there and now it has happened.......
  
  David Cameron has ditched his pledge to match Labour's spending. Now we can see a much bolder economic stance emerging based on sound money and a bedrock for sustainable econmomic growth.
  
  You will remember that I have been calling for a bold move and this is it, the big 'C' word is back and about time too. Cuts to Labour's spendthrift public sector budget are essential.
  
  Today Cameron has taken away a huge problem for the opposition in putting forward an alternative economic policy.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Maggie once said something to the effect that..anyone who was talking the Pound down was doing themself and the Country a dis-service.I wonder what she thought of Osbornes ill timed comments.Surely this makes our exports more attractive I can never understand the Tories when the Pound was riding high earlier this year they said it was killing our economy as our exports had priced themselves out of the market now its fallen to approx 1.50 thats also bad cos it makes our imports dearer.Just what the hell do they want?
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  The cuts Barry speaks of are likely to be a freeze or scrapping of the minimum wage, the scrapping of Surestart, abandoning the building of new schools and hospitals, the scaling back of regeneration projects, freezing council tax etc etc.
  
  This old style medicine was used to curb inflation and the unions. On a day when inflation has fallen we should note that this is not the issue it was in the 80s or early 90s, mainly due to the government's management of the economy over the past 11 years.
  
  As I said before the so-called freeze on Council Tax will be a major cut in expenditure, and likely in jobs. Dover District Council would face a revenue deficit of around £5m, maybe someone could tell us what services would and could be cut there.
  
  The announcement that the Tories will not match Labour's spending commitments for 2010/11 doesn't come as any great surprise. Their plans for cuts for us, the cutting of overseas aid and higher rates of VAT are still only a potential nightmare rather than a certainty with opinion polls now showing a move from the Tories with their lead dramatically down recently.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Interesting post Sid, but of course your interpretation of the cuts Conservatives are likely to make are a far cry from what is likely to happen.
  
  To put thing into perspective we have had 11 years of unrestrained spending growth and massive waste. There is a great deal of cutting that can be made without affecting front line services and capital spending projects, including regeneration.
  
  As every family knows, when you have borrowed too much, are spending too much, and your income is reducing, you have to make cuts to your spending or you have more serious problems. What you certainly cant do is carry on borrowing more and more money. The country is no diffferent.
  
  I have made a number of suggestions about where large scale cuts can be made and I quoted here recently an article by Fraser Nelson who outlined ideas similar to mine in greater detail.
  
  I remind you of the main points of that, (shortened from the excerpt previously posted):
  
  Quote"""""""""""""
  It (the NHS) has been fed like a foie gras goose for the last few years: its budget has more than doubled while the quality of the service — to put it politely — has not. There is a case for a period of stability, during which the system might digest the amount pumped in. Its budget could be kept at inherited levels for three years and it would still rank among the best-funded health systems in the world. Even growing health spending in line with inflation would save £7 billion a year, compared to the trajectory set by the government.
  
  On education, too, Mr Brown can claim the dubious achievement of doubling spending in real terms while English schools have plummeted in world performance tables. Not only are we being overtaken by other countries, but international studies show standards are falling here. So it is — staggeringly — that extra money has coincided with a decline in standards.....
  
  .....Money is no longer the key issue in education. By letting independent companies set up and run state schools, the Tories would achieve through competition and local institutional vigour what Mr Brown has failed to do by cheque-writing and Whitehall diktat. Increasing the education budget with inflation would still encourage a new breed of state schools and save £4.1 billion a year.
  
  .....failing government schemes must be axed. Chief among these are the Regional Development Authorities .......
  
  …….Much could also be saved by finally igniting the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ that Mr Brown promised in 1995.........Designed to cut out the inefficiencies of government, quangos have replicated their extravagance.
  
  ....Bogus pressure groups could be abolished, such as Postwatch (£15 million) the National Consumer Council (£3.5 million) and Energywatch (£15 million)............ But David Craig, author of Squandered — an indispensible book chronicling the sickening waste of the Brown years — estimates that cutting quango budgets by 10 per cent would save £6 billion a year.
  
  ..... The £4 billion bid (for the Olympics) has mushroomed into a £14 billion budget, as construction firms tested the old maxim that there is no more gullible paymaster than the government. An Austerity Olympics run on twice the original budget would save £7 billion. It might lack China’s dazzling opening sequence, but the world would forgive us. By that time, the Brown bust would have left Britain with more debt than Churchill took on to win the second world war....
  
  .....He (Osborne) has a few tax cuts already in the pipeline matched to specific spending cuts (such as scrapping identity cards).......
  End Quote....
  
  A range of options for spending cuts is now being drawn up by Oliver Letwin and will be released within a couple of weeks to add to this debate. I expect many of the above to be included.
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Of course I should justify my comments; the Tories cut aid and put up VAT in 1979 when they came to power, and they have voted against Surestart and the Minimum wage.
  
  Did you see what I did with my post yesterday? I showed that you can find an article or statement that you agree with and add you own words to it to dress it up as your own, clever eh? By doing this you can say that it is in context, rubbish any counter comments that dont quote figures and statistics and claim your position is the more intelligent and informed.
  
  There is a downside however, by adopting this approach you may make yourself look a tad arrogant. Oh, I should have backed up my claim that the Tories are slipping in the polls with facts: the lead was down to 5% in a poll the other day and today the lead is only 3% in a MORI poll.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  On the same day Sid as the 5% lead there was another showing an increase to 11%. Polls are all over the place.
  
  Incidentally, the latest you refer to also has the LibDems squeezed down to 12% and much as I would like to see that, I do not believe that figure, so I think there is a good chance it is a rogue poll. I note that we remain in the 40% plus range accross all these polls.
  
  Did you see the Political Betting artice on those two polls, done over the same period, with widely diffferent results? Smithson produced polling comparisons to show that usually in such circumstances it is the Labour vote that is overstated. If you dont log in to Political Betting, you should take a look at it, I dont indulge in gambling in this way myself though!
  
  Sid, I do detect a note of wishful thinking in your posts and a wish that inconvenient facts will go away.
  
  If I seem arrogant over financial issues, you should be aware that it is a field in which I have professional expertise and knowledge. I need to know what is going on as far as I can and have a solid grasp of the issues, applying them in a practical sense. So I can see how that may come across.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  No wishful thinking Barry, it's just that there are two sides to the story sometimes.
  
  Now that you mention it, you do seem arrogant sometimes. I do understand that you work at a certain level within the financial sector, others do too and have their own views which sometimes may not be the same as yours.
  
  It is a field in which I too have professional knowledge having worked for a few years in the investment department of a multi-national company.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  sid
  i have asked two questions of barry on here many times.
  
  subjects
  sure start
  the minimum wage
  tax credit
  penson credit
  winter fuel allowance to OAPS
  concessionary fares
  
  those are just off of the top of my head.
  
  the two questions have been:
  what would you do barry?
  what do you think the blues, if elected, will do?
  
  sadly, we may only find out the answers if the blues are elected.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard, most of those matters have been discussed here over the years and I have made my own views known.
  
  To give you a run down on my own personal opinion:
  Sure Start is a failure and I would scap it, reviews ghave shown it as offering a very poor value for money.
  
  I have frequently discussed my view of the minimum wage which I believe is counter productive and sets a norm that keeps wages down. A tough line on immigrants and getting rid of the minimum wage would allow the market to operate efficiently and improve incomes.
  
  Tax Credits are another that I have discussed frequently and I would scrap them and use all the money saved plus the high costs of implementing them to reduce taxes. They are far too complex and expensive, I see many people who would qualify who dont bother with claiming.
  
  The Pensions Credit is an interesting one in which I have a professional interest. These means tested benefits can be counter productive and a disincentive for people to save for their retirement. The way the Savings element is established and will disappear over a few years means that no adviser can recommend anyone on low pay to pay money into a pension. I would scrap it completely but in so doing will increase the Basic State Pension using all the money saved and what is saved by scrapping Sure Start. It would be done in a way not to disadvantage anyone already retired or close to retirement and I would increase incentives for people to save and invest for their own retirement.
  
  I would take all the complex winter fuel allowances, the paltry Christmas bonus, the whole lot and roll them into the Basic State Pension in the same way as for Pension Credit. I want to simplify the whole web of benefits and also pass on the administrative savings.
  
  Incidentally I would re-establish the link to prices (something being done anyway) as a result of the disaster created by the Government over private pensions.
  
  Furthernore I would change totally the basis of taxation for those on State Pensions. The new increased State Pension would be fully tax free and depending on the actual level that would result from the changes would establish a tax free level of Private pension on top, doing away with the Age Allowance and Age Allowance threshold. The objective would be to reduce further the level of tax payable by retired people, simplify the system and help increase the incentives for people to save. The numbers would be crunch in such a way that no-one would be worse off.
  
  A simple straigh 20% tax applying to Private Pensions above the initial tax free level (on top of the State Pension) is all the tax I would then impose on the retired. Subject only to the Lifetimes Allowance and a Lifetime Allowance charge on any excess based on an income tax rate of 40%.
  
  You really got me there on one of my professional hobby horses.
  
  I have no strong feelings regarding the travel concessions but would certainly do an audit of those who would qualify.
  
  As for the Conservatives, I am not going to speculate in the current difficult financial circumstances. That will be made clear well before any election and we can debate based on facts not speculation.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  thanks for your detailed reply.
  
  two things here, the minimum wage has done a lot to make it a level playing field for businesses, driving out the cowboys.
  just one example would be the security industry, reputable companies were training staff, after checking their work and possible criminal record.
  before the minimum wage there were many in that line of work earning around 2 quid an hour.
  a case came too light of a chap up north being paid £.1.20 per hour plus he had to supply his own dog and feed it on that money.
  
  secondly, tax credits are very confusing, i admit, but they have been responsible for getting people back into work.
  
  prior to them coming into force, any house that had 2 adults and 3 or 4 children would need a very highly paid jobto make it worthwhile rustling the duvet each morning.
  all that then happened was that children were brought up to believe that no-one in the house ever went to work, this then carried on to the next generation.
  with regard to sure start, we will not know the real effects for years to come, money spent now may well reap dividends in the future.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard, you are right that there were some real problems in the Security industry but I believe that these were sorted out by appropriate regulation. The worse cases involved doormen in nightclubs from memory.
  
  I really do think that the minimum wage is in fact keeping down many wages to what has been established as industry norms and eliminating wage competition. This being aided and abetted by the immigration free for all. While a removal may involve some losers I am certain there will be more winners. I will resist provide a case example provide by a client as I have to be careful, suffice to say 3 people are about to lose their jobs as a direct result of minimum wage issues.
  
  You will never convince me of the benefit of the tax credit system. It would be a much greater incentive to work if you were to make a big increase to the nil rate tax band. This will significantly improve incentives to work.
  
  Link these two issues together and what I would like to see would be everyone at the present minimum wage level of income at a 37 hour week level not to be subject to any income tax, partly funded through getting rid of the tax credit system. I am convinced this would help a lot more people, as well as employers, in the economic downturn. This would increase the starting rate of tax to about £10,500 pa. It would be expensive to fund but eliminating the tax credits will go a long way towards it. I would not necessarily increase the higher rate threshold by the full increase to the nil band to limit the full cost. The maximum help and incentive to earn is then provided to the lower paid.
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  we may be talking at cross purposes here, the problem with doormen was lack of regulation, hence people were coming straight out of prison for violent offences, and working the door of a club or pub.
  
  what i was referring to was the side of the industry that covers business premises, often when they were closed.
  bona fide companies were losing contracts because of dodgy people under cutting them.
  the minimum wage made it a level playing field.
  the starting point of tax!!
  
  10 and a half grand would not help the people benefitting with tax credits.
  actually i seem to remember you mentioning the figure of 12 big ones previously.
  
  your plans would drive people presently working back to signing on.
  
  let us look at the figures locally here in a cheap area.
  
  income 875 per month.
  
  rent for a house 600 per month
  council tax 90 per month
  fares to work 80 per month
  
  this would leave the princely sum of 125 used oncers for food heating lighting water rates holidays clothing and living the high life.
• Barry Williams , Dover wrote:
  Howard, first of the dodgy so called security guards were often working 'the black' for whom the minimum wage is irrelevant (still is/would be). So yes we were at cross purposes!
  
  The 12k you referred to was in respect of a diffferent debate about flat tax we had where a higher starting rate would be required. That is another debate and these days this starting rate would be higher still....
  
  I dont agree with you about the impact of doing away with the tax credits and the introduction of the higher starting rate I suggest. I think the opposite would apply and it would get more people back into work and making it more worthwhile for more people to do so.
  
  There is a benefit issue and the whole way the system is structured and that certainly needs reform in conjuction with this change. Some joined up thinking required over the whole matter, a tough headed approach also is required.
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Howard states
  
  "income 875 per month.
  
  rent for a house 600 per month
  council tax 90 per month
  fares to work 80 per month
  
  this would leave the princely sum of 125 used oncers for food .."
  
  erm I make that total expenditure £770 leaving a balance of £105.....not £125
  
  Nice one Howard you know the secret of making money stretch that little bit further.
• bern, dover wrote:
  Marek - butt out of the Howard and Barry show!!! The cheek!!!
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  marek
  
  you call yourself a socialist and yet nick 20 quid a month from the poor
  tsk tsk
  
  i have just sent off for some blue membership forms, one will be winging its way to you
• Guest 645 wrote:
  Bern
  Love your comment.I should know my place and leave Little & Large too it.!!!
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Obviously politics is in suspension while the whole population waits for monday and the chancellors announcement of tax cuts. We, the lowly proletariat, are all longing for a kind of early Christmas bonanza, so that we can get out there and kick start the economy. Isnt it comforting to know that Big Business needs us humble proles spending spending spending. We are wanted. Its nice to feel neeeded. So come on chancellor put a few bob back in our pockets so that we can get out and buy our Christmas presents in the ailing shops. We know we have to pay later!
  
  Live Now Pay Later...this was always a sensible yardstick for the British population...remember HP...we all lived on it once! The car was on hp, the tv was on hp, yer life was on hp.
  
  Whats this weeks bargain buy? Well...Better rush round to Woolworth with your soon to be delivered tax cut as the whole company is on sale for a £1. Yes I kid you not. A bargain of sorts...but the downside, well it comes with very large debts attached. There is always a bummer downside to every deal!
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Yes indeed PaulB Monday should be interesting.
  
  An alternative view was expressed in one of the 'pinks' I read putting forward the suggestion that a stimulous could in fact deepen and lengthen the recession, rather than alleviate it. It was very technical and long but a good case was presented.
  
  I personally still believe tax cuts are necessary, but as long as they are the right ones, simply because we are over taxed. Also it is essential that they are fully funded, there must not be a bigger borrowing binge.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Some of us are hoping the fiscal stimulus that'll be unveiled tomorrow will boost the economy and head off the recession. Isn't it terrible that some would like the efforts to fail for their own vested interests.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I dont think anyone wants the economy to get worse for any kind of 'agenda', far from it.
  
  There are disputes over the best way to resolve the problems.
• Roger, Dover wrote:
  I agree - we all want the economy to be healthy and people spending in the (our) High Streets, but surely just borrowing more money to pay for it, is not the right way to do it; there many ways ways to save money - Government wastage runs into trillions, that where it should come from.
  
  One way to stimulate the economy, spoken of recently is VAT, but we can only reduce that by 2 1/2% due to EU law - will this small amount make much of a difference to the High Street ? and why can't we make up our own minds about taxes - taxes are not level across the board in Europe.
  
  
  
  
  
  Roger
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Did my post strike a nerve? I think the measures that will be announced today should be given a chance to work. Those who want the government to fail through their blind hatred or bias should think what effect a stand back and let the recession do its worse stance would have on the least well off in our society. My message would be to keep quiet for six months and see what effect this fiscal stimulus has.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  You would love that Sid, would you not?
  
  For HM Loyal Opposition to forgo its constitutional duty in not pointing out inconsistencies and problems with Government policies, would be anti-democratic and frankly stupid.
  
  Why on earth should the Government be allowed off the hook of its own making.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid and other Labour supporters.
  
  You might like to know how the markets are reacting to the possibility of a big increase in Government borrowing. its a bit technical but bear with it.
  
  5 year gilts have surged 4 basis points to a record high of 87.5.
  
  To put it another way, taxpayers are paying a premium of £8750 pa for every £1m of UK Government debt to insure against the possibility of Government default. This is the highest premium ever.
  
  This is an indicator of the lack of confidence that the markets have in the Government.
  
  Another indicator was the last Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee minutes. This is the body that decides on interest rates. The 1.5% cut in rates would have been 2% but they were worries about the Governemnt borrowing more money to fund a stimulus, This fully justifies George Osborne's earlier warnings.
  
  If the Government do not fully fund thier tax cuts then the economy could well be in for more problems, possibly another run on the £.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Well, well, I did think you'd give the Chancellor's measures at least fifteen minutes before you rubbished them Barry. Instead you are prepared to be negative before he's even announced them. The so-called Conservative opposition are in my view showing that they are prepared to talk down the UK economy for their own aims and are unpatriotic.
  
  And with their proposals to freeze public spending and to stand by and watch a recession without acting arent the Tories signalling to the British public that their claims to be progessive are bogus.
• Barry Williams , Dover wrote:
  I have merely pointed out how the markets are viewing what is going on, Sid. That is enough of a comment for now.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  I watched the pre-budget report on my tellybox earlier and the response from George Osborne was most interesting. He must have sat with his fingers in his ears during the Chancellor's statement because he ranted on as if he'd written his speech beforehand. There was no mention from him regarding increase in state pension, winter fuel benefit and tax credits, nor on the help put in place for the unemployed and those struggling with their mortgages, or for that matter the investment in public works like schools, housing and transport.
  
  The Chancellor announced a £20bn fiscal stimulus to boost the UK economy, Osborne didnt mention the £50bn the Tory government borrowed in 1992 to prop up the pound. He even tried to suggest that this Labour government was responsible for the [global] crisis but did not have any facts to back up his politically motivated [and unpatriotic] bluster.
  
  Funnily enough the US government has acknowledged that the crisis began in their housing market and only the most biased or stupid would suggest that Gordon Brown or any of his ministers are responsible for Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, General Motors, the Iclandic banks and now Citigroup.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  OK Sid, let me take you back to the real world.
  
  I listened to the first part of the speech but due to a client arriving have just had to catch up with the main measures on-line.
  
  Ok - the help to small businesses is positive and very welcome, probably the most important part of the measures.
  
  Naturally we can welcome help for the elderly and with child benefit.
  
  That aside, looking at the broader picture and the all important economic impact, this is a disaster waiting to happen.
  
  He is really is going for bust and make no mistake this is going to cost him in the gilt markets. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that it will be costing all of us dear.
  
  He started with a hopelessly optimistic growth expectation for 2010. Far higher than any independent forecast.
  
  The levels of borrowing that he is proposing will seriously inhibit recovery.
  
  I have warned before of the risk of a 'double dip' recession and do remember, when others start talking about it, where you heard it first.
  
  He is injecting £20bn into the economy only to increase taxes by £40bn to pay for it. The problem of course if that his tax rises will be kicking in steadily while the economy lifts from the longest and deepest recession since the end of the war. These tax rises will place, at the very best, a damper on a fragile recovery and that will threaten the 'second dip' recession alongside the slack monetary control.
  
  I predict that the tax rises announced will only be the tip of the problem, simply because he has been so hopelessly over optimistic.
  
  I have been thinking about the VAT reduction from 17.5% to 15% for a mere 13 months. This is going to cost my small business over £100 to implement (in cash) plus a fair amount of time, then another £100 plus in 13 months time! It will benefit my clients by mere pennies, so little it is hardly worth their time, and mine, in implementing. Taking into account my time as well as cash cost, the total cost of implementing will be more than the VAT saved by all my existing clients put together.
  
  Lets be clear, whatever he says, this Government, specifically Gordon Brown, is responsible for the length and depth of the recession. It is his mismanagement that means we are in for a worse time than any other major world economy, first into recession and we will likely be the last out.
  
  As for George Osborne, I did not hear his reply but I have read reaction in the blogosphere from jouralists and bloggers and I have to say he has been highly praised. As for being part prepared beforehand, of course it was, there was so much of this budget leaked that he would have been daft not to do so..
  
  His failure to implement spending cuts is crazy, the economics of the madhouse. He is forcing the private sector to bear the full force of this recession leaving his bloated public sector unscathed. Simply mad.
  
• howard mcsweeney1 wrote:
  barry
  
  i am concerned about your comments on the markets reaction to the programme.
  
  rising by 10% is not crashing in my book.
  
  i think that he did not go far enough, 2 and a half per cent off of goods in the shops will not stimulate things too much.
  
  the raising of the tax threshhold could have been more.
  
  having said all that, it is better than doing nothing and just watching businesses fold and the dole queues lengthening.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry, you carry on with you low level attacks and it's getting a little galling - everyone who knows me knows that I live in the real world. People on this forum are entitled to their opinions, even you. I actually think you may be [nearly] right with what you said about Gordon Brown, the length and depth of the recession may be down to him - with the measures announced today the UK economy may come out of the downturn sooner and stronger. It would be wrong to sit back and watch as the recession gets deeper and longer, do you not remember when Thatcher, and then Major, fiddled while businesses went bust, unemployment figures rised, poverty and deprivation soared?
  
  Today's measures are aimed to boost the economy, what most independent commentators either want or approve of. We all want the economy to weather the storm and for our families to feel better off in the long term and it doesn't help anyone, except maybe the politically desperate - and in my opinion, unpatriotic - to rubbish the efforts. The stock market jumped by nearly ten per cent in value after the statement so the markets have at least been positive, let's hope it continues.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Howard - you are mixing up markets.
  
  The FTSE shares indices rose today on the back of an international market bounce from a low level. One main cause being the response to the Citibank problem.
  
  My reference was to the gilt market, where Brown has to go to borrow. I have given the actual figures there and cannot be more precise. It speaks for itself. I will certainly be wartching further developments.
  
  Sid - you really are sensitive at straight talking, heat, kitchens and all that!!!
  
  The more I absorb the news the worse this looks. Brown really is leading this country into a bigger and bigger disaster. He is pouring petrol onto the flames and Darling has created the most irresponsible budget in UK history.
  
  The full depth of the problems he is stoking up will become increasingly apparent.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  BarryW the point is that no one at all really knows if this new budget will work or not. The government have opted to do things this particular way and in effect are taking a gamble in a number of areas. Sure the Tories are playing the party political with it all, but behind the party political it nevertheless just might work to the benefit of all.
  
  You can see how the public are diserviced by party politics on occasion and this is one of those occasions. You could see it yesterday in the House of Commons. It cannot be the case can it, that everyone blue thinks one way and everyone red thinks another way. Its sheeplike, surely some blue might think its good and some red might think its bad. We the public are diserviced by this.
  
  Experts however are agreed that its a massive gamble but a massive gamble to help small businesses, to help those struggling on mortgages, to help pensioners, to help the lower paid....it could work. Im still not clear myself what the Conservatives would have done in its stead.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  PaulB - the simple answer is fiscal responsibility.
  
  Any family has to balance its budget. You cannot keep on piling debt upon debt, it just does not work. That is what the Government has been doing for 11 years and, what is more, been encouraging the public to do so as well.
  
  That is the core to the problem and is why we are the worse placed country to weather the recession. We are the first in and are likely to be the last out.
  
  This budget includes a lot of complicated medicine and that alone is a bad sign. I am currently going through alerts and other budgetary detail left out of the speech and newspapers, it get worse and worse.
  
  The tax rises on the rich will actually reduce the tax paid by the rich, it is called the 'Lasser Curve'. We are not talking here about the 5% rise to 45%, but also the reductions and elimination of personal tax allowances for those earning over £100k and the NI rises plus pension changes. All together this will have a massive impact on tax revenues from the top 10% of earners. It will be counter productive.
  
  It is becoming clearer and clearer that the VAT reduction will also not work and will not be passed on, in many cases, to the public and instead will add the retailers bottom line or be absorbed in the sale discounts.
  
  The whole point PaulB is that the books need to be balanced and massive cuts made to public spending. This can be done without cutting front line services or capital building projects. Brown will not do that, he will preserve his public sector at all costs, in fact to the cost of the private sector. Seeing it is the private sector which will be the wealth creators to pull us out of recession, by doing that he is therefore prolonging and deepening the recession.
  
  The Government have announced some of the tax rises that will be needed when the recession eases. If they have cut taxes to stimulate the economy out of a recession then it does not take a genius to understand the impact of increasing them as we emerge from a recession.
  
  I have said before we are heading for a double dip recession and the chances of that have been increased by Government policy.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  There's a lot in what you say PaulB, I think it is a gamble from both main parties. The Labour government has staked everything on an injection that they hope will ease the crisis and prevent our economy dipping too severely. The Tories on the other hand are gambling that an all attack will boost their political standing which is begining to ebb away. I just think that the government have at their disposal both the Bank of England and the Treasury to ensure that it is a calculated risk and most commentators I've read seem to think it's a positive move. The stock market has continues to progress upwards on the back of a seemingly new confidence in the economy.
  
  Yesterday Barack Obama was saying he' s going to create 2.5m new jobs and George Bush's current government bailed out Citigroup and the US federal bank has pumped $800m into their markets today. Why hasnt the Tories and their apologists attacked what's going on there? I think that Obama will be looking at the measures taken by Roosevelt after the Wall Street Crash to get them, and the rest of the world for that matter, out of the Depression - a programme that spent its way out of a recession.
• howard mcsweeeny, dover wrote:
  interesting stuff sid, the US government pumped billions into their banks to keep them going and the fat cats in jobs.
  
  the rest of the population is it heavily by unemployment, what would their reaction be if no money headed in their direction, giving the ones with jobs a better chance of keeping them, and those without employment the chance of a job.
  
  a hand up rather than a hand out is the answer.
  
  the blues used to crow that one.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  What you Labour apologists dont seem to understand Sid is that Labour's medicine was tried by Japan in 1990 and it didnt work.
  
  The stock market, incidentally, is progressing from a very low point due to international factors. Unless of course you want to credit a certain Mr G Brown for the much larger rise in the DOW?
  
  You may get your economic news from the Daily Mirror or perhaps the more upmarket Daily Sport, but being in the finance industry I get mine from a broad range of finance professionals direct. It is not the Brown/Darling budget that is being praised but George Osborne's performance in response.
  
  By the way, the Speaker has granted GO's request for a 3 hour emergency debate on the Emergency Budget (which is what it really is) tomorrow (Wednesday). Something the hapless Darling was keen to avoid.
  
  Noww that really will be interesting.
  
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  Barry, I'm a Guardian reader! I'm sure you get info from a wide range of sources but you seem only to pick out the bits that you like. You didnt hear what Osborne had to say in the Commons yesterday did you, funnily enough he mentioned Japan. Maybe that's in today's briefing. As I said before, yesterday's events were about gambling and Cameron's is to stick with his shadow chancellor and his stance. They said on the telly today that Brown/ Darling are out batting Cameron/ Osborne, has anyone seen any figures on this?
  
  
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  The Guardian hey..... well well then perhaos you missed this bit in the Leader column:
  """That VAT giveaway, for instance, looked like classic Brown: an attempt to buy the support of Middle England by spraying a little cash everywhere. Yes, it will boost spending a bit. But when Sir Stuart Rose is offering 20% off at Marks and Spencer, an extra 2.5% discount does not make much odds. Yes, it will be easy to remove later, but it is a pointless policy, encouraging junk-consumerism of Chinese imports, rather than laying the ground for a more sustainable economic model. And that is what Britain needs, as the coming months will make clear, with banks laying off workers and tax income from financial firms, house sales and share-dealing fast drying up."""
  
  The truth is Sid, as a finance professional I have to distile a range of views and assessments. It is necessary to do my job.
  
  What about this from the Independent's Hamish McRae...
  """This is not going to work, is it? Having got us into a jam by borrowing too much, the way out is to borrow yet more. This is a gamble of monumental scale, a bet on the world economy growing again by the second half of next year. If it does recover, then the Chancellor may have succeeded in puffing up our own economy a bit during the downturn but the borrowing levels to achieve that are terrifying."""
  
  He ended...
  """"But this whole package is about politics as much as economics. It is trying to crank things up for a few months at the cost of pain in the future. The next government will have the huge task of rebuilding fiscal discipline, creating order and efficiency in public services, simplifying the tax system and trying to regain some of the lost ground in terms of the UK's competitive advantage"""
  
  That sums this emergency budget up really. It is nothing at all to do with restoring Britain's tattered and near bankrupt economy but this tattered and near bankrupt Government.
• Guest 640 wrote:
  Well that first bit from the Guardian is nonsense as I said elsewhere today. Sir Stuart Rose is offering 20% off nothing!! so much for these learned quotes..these guys are faffling around in the dark like the rest of us.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  I think that PaulB of most of what we see in the Guardian....
  
  The point he is making though is that there is a hell of a lot of high discounting going on on the high street and on line. Take a look, shops are desperate to get turnover.
  
  One intersting point - The Institute of Fiscal Studies have said that the increase in the top rate of tax to 45% will not raise the £2bn Darling claims. They say it will actually raise nothing at all.... The Lasser Curve at work. Indeed the changes to personal allowance as well could well result in negative returns.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  As I said before Barry your knowledge and skills are I'm sure adequate at a certain level. Some financial commentators think the measures may do the trick and that is where you fall down, you either do not think it will work or do not want it to work. What if it does? Didnt you think the Poll Tax was good, could you have been wrong then? I've never met or know anyone who was never wrong.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  'Adequate at a certain level' well Sid you are too kind.....
  
  My 'adequacy' is sufficient to know economic madness when I see it. You dont have to be a student of Keynes, Friedman or Hayak to understand that. If you had any idea of economic policy you will know that even Keynes would not approve of the stupidity of your Government's policy, despite Labour's spin.
  
  I remember well, 1982 and Geofrey Howe's budget, those, what was it, 365 economists (including Mervyn King), signing a letter saying his budget would be a disaster. Remember who it was who had egg all over their faces? it wasnt Howe, that budget was the catylist for the economic recovery that lasted the next 7 years.
  
  There is no real big mystery about economics and it does not take a genius to know that you cannot just keep borrowing crazy amounts of money without paying it back.
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  So if they were wrong about Howe's budget there could be a chance that you may be wrong now. It could also be possible that a high flying high level advisor in a major provincial town knows better than several economists within the Treasury. That's my point exactly, just as we had to wait to see Howe's measures play out we'll need to give Darling's time, thanks for the reference there Barry.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  But the difference is, Sid, that I am in favour of 'sound money' as a basis for economic policy, exactly the same approach as the highly successful Geoffrey Howe.
  
  The high borrowing/high taxing approach favoured by those economists were proven wrong in 1982 and are still wrong.
  
  Some economists certainly favour the Gvernment approach but just as many are against it. I have met many economists and financial analysts in my time and like actuaries they live in a world of theory. I live and work in the real world of dealing, ground up, with the financial situation.
  
  It is people like me that are consulted by economists on that real world. Only a couple of months ago I hosted a breakfast for the Chief Economist of the BoE in Dover for just such a consultation.
  
  By the way, speaking of this 'financial adviser in a small provincial town', yesterday the FSA's Retail Distribution Review has been published in its final form. All Independent Financial Advisers will be forced to adopt the basis by which I have been conducting business for the last 5 years... 90% of IFAs will have to change the way they work and follow my lead or they will no longer be able to call themselves IFA's but 'Sales Advisers'. Not bad for a 'mere financial adviser in a small provincial town' eh....
• Sid Pollitt, Deal wrote:
  But Barry it appears the Tories are just opposing the government's plans for their own political ends dont you think? Today the shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley has been quoted as saying a recession could be 'good for us', does he mean just the Tories or all of us? Strange thing to say dont you think? Maybe it's part of the do-nothing Tories do-nothing message.
  
  Oh, and well done you for leading the way on high end finance, maybe you'll too be jetting around the world soon showing everyone has it's done.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Sid, do stop repeating absurd Labour spin.
  
  The Conservative opposition is based on sound economics and the fundamental errors being made in the way Brown is addressing the recession.
• Dave, Whitfield wrote:
  I don't agree with much of what the Tory Opposition has to say but it is nice to see them getting their act together and being a credible opposition. It is healthy for the Country.
• Barry Williams, Dover wrote:
  Thats a fair comment Dave, though I would beg to differ with you over policy.