"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-septe
mber.org, at 17:10:41 on Sat, 5 Nov 2016, Recliner
remarked:

But his chances of becoming an MP are low (Labour only had 12.3%
of the vote last time)

"Slim to none" is a more realistic description.

However, prospective MPs have to "earn their wings" contesting
impossible seats, before being offered a safe seat some years later.

Yes, and by standing, he'll split the pro-Remain vote, thus pretty much
guaranteeing that Zac keeps his seat; otherwise the LDs might have had a
chance of winning the seat back.


I see Wolmar has had to start his campaign by defending the decision not
to
back the LD candidate instead. He skates around why it's better to let
Goldsmith win:
"Why would we deliberately opt out of a three-week high profile campaign
which gives us an opportunity to demonstrate our renewed unity [Huh?] and
our distinctive ideas?"

http://labourlist.org/2016/11/richmo...-and-lib-dems/

But once he's lost, he has to go back to earning his living as a
supposedly
impartial railway journalist and author, which won't be helped by phrases
like, "people should be turning their backs on this vicious and nasty
government".

I really do hate the way that lefties bandy about personal abuse just
because they disagree with someone's political position.

Look, it's fairly simple here. The Tory party aren't (despite your claims
otherwise) making these choices (to cut spending) that they make because
they are pre-disposed to be "nasty" people. They are making them because
they *genuinely* believe that, for the economic good of the country, it's
the right thing to do - and in the current state of the country's finances
doing what's right for the economy trumps doing what is socially the right
thing to do.

And the reality of (basic maths) is that,

1) the alternative of putting up taxes on the rich collects such a tiny
amount of money it's hardly worth doing
and
2) costs cutting by government is bound to have a greater effect on the
worst off members of society because, making use of the things that
government provides, is a much larger part of a poor person's life than that
of a rich person.

If you disagree on the fundamentals of someone's policy you have to have a
convincing argument that that policy is wrong. Calling them names because
of the unavoidable consequences of that, well founded [1], policy is not a
vote winner in my book.

tim

[1] it must be well founded because so far you haven't put up an argument
against it. You seem to think that name calling suffices here. It doesn't

FTAOD "you" in the above refers to no person in particular here