Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
is she ever without parent?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yes quite often kieth.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
all photos seem to be WITH
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"I'd save £112 with Labour".
Yeah, just put it on the Public Debt and let the coming generation pay for it. Simples
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
well you cant complain you didn't /wont vote
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I'm not complaining, Keith. Other people are complaining.
My comment - not a complaint - was to note that Labour place many costs on the Public Debt and let other generations pay for it.
People vote Labour because their father and grandfather did.
Each passed the Public Debt down to the other, and so now they want to pass it on to their children and grandchildren.
Each time the Debt gets larger.
As for voting, why should I vote for someone else and not myself?
People don't like or appreciate my ideas, so do I have to vote for other people?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
bit of an abdication of responsibility alex, just do what most of us do and vote for who will do the least damage.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
The very idea of an energy price freeze is nothing short of pathetic.
There is only one proposal that is worth considering, and that is to reverse the domestic energy pricing policy overall.
The cost of energy use should rise in-line with the amount used...
There should be a low base-tariff for the amount of energy needed to light, heat and cook - set from an average of usage of a pensioner couple...
The next tariff-tranche should be priced a little higher to cover the average use for a family home...
The further tariff-tranches of usage should from this point rise more steeply.
There is no better way.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Can't disagree, Tom. Perhaps the standing charge ought to include the basic tranche?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Yes Peter, that is more or less the same thing, as all consumers would pay the lower price on that first/basic tranche of usage, as they do the standing-charge.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Why should I, Howard?
I've never abdicated my responsibilities and am quite happy with my arrangement.
If ever I want to stand as a candidate and be voted, I'll jolly well do so under my own name!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
Howard;
how selfish is alexanders attitude
he would do well in the conservative party lol(im alright jack pull up the ladder) lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith,
you have stated openly that you will not vote for any party, but will spoil your vote.
Neither will you be standing for election (your own words).
What is the raison d'etre of your critique above?
Contrary to you, I would be prepared to stand and be counted, rather than just complaining!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
Alexander
post 51 says it all
pull up the ladder jack im ok
something in my life i would never do
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
?
Apart from your incomprehensible statement there, Keith, you have criticised the Labour prospective MP on account of her being a woman.
Candidates should be given a fair chance and not criticised on whether they are a man or a woman, the colour of their hair or what Keith would do or would never do.
You criticise, Keith, for the sole sake of criticising.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,915
Whilst I don't have to explain myself to you, I will give an answer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
After over 25 years with the Labour Party(active years) winning seat off the tories in a marginal ward.
Unlike yourself on religion, Im willing to see all sides.
I believe if any one wants to stand to be a candidate for the labour party, then they should be able to do so.
Unfortunatly, the Labour party decided that if you are a male you could not be considered, totally sexist in my opinion.
On the other side of this I have fought for many women to get a better deal, and there are women within the local labour party who also are against the imposed candidate, and the biased selection process.
As for Ms Hawkins, no i wont be voting for her, thats my choice
and yes i will be spoiling my ballot paper.
Will she make a good candidate, i really have no idea, only time will tell.
of course the Dover seat is very marginal between labour and Charlie, and it could go either way
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The MP seat for Dover and Deal, Keith, will go to whoever wins it!
That might be a person who belongs neither to the Tory or the Labour party.
It's only you who keeps stating that all Parliament seats will be either Conservative or Labour.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, the Labour party approved Clair Hawkins as prospective Labour MP for Dover and Deal.
You confessed you are not a Labour member for many years and declared you will be spoiling you ballot paper anyway.
You could form your own party and stand as a candidate yourself, or nominate someone to your own liking who is member of such party.
But opposing a candidate because she is female ... sorry, Keith, that's not on!
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
Alexander D wrote:But opposing a candidate because she is female ... sorry, Keith, that's not on!
If you his posts, Keith has made it clear many times that he was opposed to the all female selection list, not to the particular female that was chosen or the fact a female was chosen, and that's his reason for not voting or spoiling his paper.
However much you disagree with him there is a bit of logic in this, and if it related to a candidate list for a job it would almost certainly be illegal.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,869
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
