blandy

Which is fair enough. Though the LDs are indeed not contesting some seats. Green, Plaid etc the same. Labour is essentially giving the tories a pass in some seats, by opposing Greens LDs etc. I see that many people feel the way you say about the LDs being yellow tories. And their record doesn't help there, in that they did coalition with the tories. Personally I don't see it that way, but it's a fair enough view, I guess, especially for the tribal.

Ah, OK. Then my objection is that you cannot punish people or businesses for acting legally. That's the whole thing with loopholes - they're legal.

Over the past few years, LD/Green/SNP/Plaid have asked About to join them in a pact opposing Brexit and so on. Labour declined. It's true that the votes in parliament have seen Tories, LDs, Green/SNP/Plaid/Independents vote together and plan together under Cooper, Kinnock Grieve Letwin etc. but Labour has kept its distance. As I've posted earlier today, the LDs have to say "Corbyn's an arse" because they want to attract Tory retainers to their Remain cause. They don't do that by saying "Vote LD, get Corbyn" It's also the case that a lot of Labour MPs and voters don't think Corbyn is fit to be PM, either. I can't vote. I will be absent on the date, and I found out my postal vote application went through, but the paper form won't arrive in time. I'd probably vote either Green or LD here - Green because their environmental policies are something I strongly agree with, or LD because they are possibly least badly placed to finish second to the Tory who will get in again here, but I share a lot of the cynicism about them, but they're not, at least, as damaging as the Tories or Corbyn.

Possibly so, but as the minor party in a coalition Government you could ask argue that they acted as a (small party) break on the Tories wilder plans as much as they could. They got eaten alive for it, as well. I think they wouldn't make that 'mistake" again. either with the Tories or with Labour's madder plans. But it's by the by because Labour won't, for their own selfish reasons, co-operate.

As a constructive comment, there are incentives as well as the stick that a Government could use to push towards more equitable pay scales. There's obviously just increasing the top level of income tax, There's taxing bonuses. On the ratio itself, if a ratio is set at (say) 20 times, then possible things like only awarding Government contracts to Companies/organisations who comply with the scale. As Sam and Dave said, applying it to organisations which are funded by the Government (though it would have to be gradual) might help, though local government, deprived as it is of funding cannot afford to suddenly increase their wage bills and cannot dismiss execs "for being paid too much". So even the "simple" steps are mostly difficult to implement. In part that might be why there's not much if any political will from anyone to do it (yet).

That's a mix of innocent and draconian, if I might say so. So first the Gov't of the day needs to get a bunch of experts in writing and implementing tax law from somewhere (KPMG etc), but they also need draconian powers to stop these folk leaving their jobs later then going back to the private sector by threatening disbarment, revoking of licenses to work etc. Good luck with attracting them with that "package" Oh and they'd have to take a pay cut, too. Sweet deal. Government threatens to disbar people working for it if they dare to leave their jobs sounds a bit George Orwell to me.

I'm not sure, even given Labour's move to the left that they are actually ideologically closer to the Tories. The tories have moved right, too. Lib Dems have stayed the same socially more Labour, economically more Tory, environmentally more Green. The LDs have been quite happy to work with Greens, Plaid, SNP etc. and vice versa. Labour doesn't want to play, because Labour is mainly wanting to get Saint Jeremy into Gov't. and doesn't want to acknowledge that their best chance is via broad coalition. They will lose seats, not gain them, overall. There's much in that. Yet Labour doesn't want the election to be about Brexit in large part because they haven't got a clear position on it. Unlike the LDs and (now) the tories who have, Labour is split and they have a porridge of a plan. Better for them to shout at nasty tories and nasty Lib Dems and not bother in Scotland. They can feel all warm and virtuous then, while the tories get back in. The only way to stop the tories getting back in is for every other central or left party to co-operate. Labour does not want to do that. The others do, though Corbyn is a real problem for the LDs and Labour can't/won't pot him now, until he's been hammered in the election, when it'll be too late.

Yes, there's 2 aspects to it. Political will is certainly one. The other is how you actually do something complex, where do you get experts from and how do you balance that with independence from the experts former or future "interests". For example the various accountancy businesses pay skilled, qualified, chartered tax accountants a lot of money, because they can find ways around and loopholes in national tax laws. Their job is , in part, to be smarter than the government people. Given that, you need poachers to turn gamekeeper, and then you worry that they may "betray" some of the principles of their new roles as they might want to create new loopholes, or get an insight into future plans and then move back into the private realm and work round them... So it's not at all straightforward. Of course most people employed by the government will be honest and upright, or at least abide by the law, but the lure of better paid jobs with Anderson accounting or KPMG will not disappear. Pretending it is easy, just a matter of will is IMO naive. And not trying to reduce inequality because "it's too hard" is also wrong. But it is imperative to come up with better than (however well intended) catch phrases or gimmicks. I see the tories as (you say) not willing and Labour as "moral" but seemingly a bit clueless on it.

I note even Labour merely has it as an "idea", rather than "we will" or "we can", going by Dave's post.

You're more trusting than I, then. I've seen little or no evidence of the "wheeze thinkers" being out-wheezed by Gov't or civil service minds in any kind of even gentle crack down on high earners. Something like upping income tax take from the very wealthy is relatively simple compared to legislating a maximum pay ratio and all the complications that brings, yet they still appear to find ways round it.

I get that, as a starting point. Do it though and you won't half struggle to recruit into the public sector at management level, when they can earn way more in the Private. Right now, there are a lot of overpaid chief execs across the board, and there's a good moral argument to say that things like NHS trusts, those Free schools (whatever they're called, I forget) are just schemes for sometimes borderline useless Execs to get paid an awful to of Taxpayer money. I completely sympathise with the aim of a more equitable society and a return to reasonable pay ratios, I just struggled to see a practical way to implement it, even over time.

Such as? All broadcasters in the UK have to be impartial by law.

She’s right about Corbyn. Also Corbyn and Labour should understand that in order for Lib Dem’s to take remainder Tory votes the LDs need appear “Tory acceptable” to those remainers. So it’s also a political signal. All parties send that kind of signal message when they want to win converts from other parties. LDs have said they would work with any opposition party to enable a 2nd referendum, assuming they’re not the next government (which they won’t be). i left the Farage party off the list because it’s a company, not a party

As a ”natural fairness” type argument it’s impossible to disagree with, really. As a realistic policy it’s sadly a joke. Why? Aston Villa pays players, what, say some get 2 million quid a year. Now the reception needs at least 100 grand a year to comply. So the job of receptionist gets outsourced and villa pays a fee to a company for “services”. Or another hypothetical example, I am an apprentice at big co. Plc. I get national minimum wage. The boss gets 2 million a year for 2000 hours work. Enforce the ratio and the boss gets a 1.6 million pay cut...or head office moves to Holland or Paris or Monaco. Who exactly wins out of all this? its absolutely the case that executive pay has shot up way beyond natural levels since the late 70s. And it did so because they realised they could. Putting the genie back in the bottle is harder. The pay scale thing is a great “idea”. It’s fluffy and warm and virtuous. It’s not, sadly, ever going to be implemented, because it’s not practicable and saying the obvious (tax the **** out of the rich) isn’t quite as fluffy, though would be more effective.

Sure. They’ve also done them in remain areas and mixed areas and had a wider range of views. Don’t get me wrong some of the coverage I’ve seen has been poor, some of it overly gammon focused for my tastes, but none of it has seemed to be pushing any agenda or angle. I watch some 24 hour news, some evening news sometimes newsnight and listen to radio news. Don’t watch or listen to anything like Questions Time or debates, so maybe my mix is atypical. If one channel starts showing sh!te I turn over or off.

From the first candidate standing down it does look like local LDs think they can’t win and so need to boost labour. That’s good. However 2017 election results are not much of a guide in many seats. Remain seats with tories and leave seats with labour MPs may see huge swings.whoever came 1 and 2 last time could end up third... Another general comment is that in various seats LDs, greens, plaid, independents have stood down for each other. Labour didn’t wish to do that or to get involved in boosting the anti Tory vote to the max. So Jo Swinson might ask why not ? Give me something in return and we have a deal. Putting country before party is being done to a large extent by everyone except for the Tories and Labour, who go around demanding others stand down, but not them.

I’ve not seen that. Vox pops are overdone and not of much value anyway, but they’ve been doing them from various places, brexity and otherwise. It’s not wrong or biased to go to places they usually ignore, like stoke or Barnsley or darlo. I don’t see them pushing any angle. They do however let too many politicians and spokespersons get away with all sorts of crap. They are nowhere near sceptical or robust enough in challenging government lies, but actively pushing, not for me.

I believe he has been given advice to stay indoors awhile.

This.

They've paid good money for the tories to win, so they wouldn't want that to have been wasted, would they?

Belter. That song is what got me into him

No. Keep guessing Sid.

There's 2 strands to replying to that, Mark. Firstly, it depend where you live. Where I live is a 10000 tory majority. The tactical voting sites tell me that because Labour came 2nd last time, vote for them. Yet they were not much ahead of the LDs. With LDs picking up a lot due to opposing Brexit, I'd probably be better off voting for them than Labour, whose first bit of their Brexit policy says "negotiate a new deal to Leave with. Then there are various other parts to it, including whether or not they decide to oppose their own negotiated deal, then hold a referendum. I can't see any Leave deal being better than remain, so Labour disqualify themselves for me, and for many more people. Ultimately though this seat will stay Tory, I imagine. So whatever I think or vote matters not a jot. The second strand is that as much as I loathe the tories, and I really do, I'm also repelled by Corbyn and his clique - their judgement, competence, double standards, hypocrisy, record with the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah and various other profoundly dumb (being charitable) associations. They are IMO seriously unfit to be the Cabinet and PM - as bad, every bit as bad, though in different ways, to the tories "top team". Of course there are plenty (though a diminishing number of Labour MPs who I admire and respect and would vote for in a flash were they standing in my seat - lefter ones and more centrist ones - but they're not. And Labour's policies, overall, are better than the tories in some massive areas. They've also got some daft ones, true. But ultimately they need to get rid of the numpties at the top and then I can go back to voting for them, my vote still making not the slightest difference. I want a Labour that isn't incompetent. While it is, I see no way they are a viable alternative to the baby eaters.

Money. Personal "advancement". Costs to compete in 300 odd seats avoided for NF Corp. They'd win none of them, either. Reward no doubt in my mind via some sort of gong if the tories get back in.

Yes, these IRA supporting/sympathising politicians are utterly unfit to represent anyone aren't they?