Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Helj

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree with Tzijlstra. It’s true society would be poorer without volunteers. However, when you look at the use of unpaid workers now, it really does remove jobs for people who need paid employment. Retired librarians doing a professional job unpaid are taking away the jobs of younger people who need them. Similarly in other professions. It is a hard choice to make as to whether not doing the volunteering might see the loss of a valuable service entirely, or the city might finally find the money to pay for a service. There’s truth in the saying that people don’t value anything that is free. If they are doing work that has never been a paid post, that is different. But volunteers like this are the same as the so called 'graduate internships' which see young people working unpaid for 3-6 months and then replaced by more which all replace a paid full time person. These retired volunteers are doing exactly the same. The main argument is that the council hasn't the money to pay for them so the posts wouldn't exist. It just shows how little value people put on the library service.
  2. I find it hard to accept current Labour MPs not supporting the view of the current leader as a reason to deselect them. Of the 35 years Jeremy Corbyn has been an MP, the 33 years of being on the back benches showed him regularly at odds with the Labour leadership and frequently not voting with them. Until now, Labour has been seen as allowing a much broader range of views, all of which were seen as valuable. The thing I find hardest to accept from the Labour leadership -Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and Murphy is the aggressive way they speak of those within their party who are not in agreement with them, and their use of altering the rules and turning a blind eye to encourage local CLPs to deselect those they see as not helpful to their view of the Labour Party. Under Blair and Brown, Corbyn and McDonnell were not treated this way, despite not being on the same side of the party.
  3. Exactly, Top Cats Hat. SO she has to vote the way she believe is best for her constituents. I suspect abstaining was because believing Brexit wasn't going to help constituents she couldn't vote in favour of it, and she was maybe worried that voting against it would indeed lead to deselection given her CLP views. She wasn't going to be able to win on this whatever unless she voted in a way she believed would be bad for her constituents.
  4. The thing is that MPs are supposed to be representatives not delegates. They are there to represent the best interests of their constituents as they see it, not as delegates mandated by policies. The MP isn't directed to vote as mandated by their constituency labour (or conservative) party, but to vote how they believe serves their constituents best interests. This is what the Constituency Labour Parties who are threatening deselection fail to understand. They are there to represent all the constituents, not just the few who turn up on the night to vote for local policy. They also represent all the labour voters who aren't party members, and all the constituents who didn't vote labour. Their responsibility is to everyone.
  5. For people who think Nick Clegg’s promises on the NHS and mental health are worth listening to, look at the review here of the NHS and mental health services under the coalition and the funding links to the LibDems from private healthcare https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/carl-walker/four-reasons-nick-clegg-is-no-mental-health-saviour And looking at the coalition and their Conservative partners, the fact that Lynton Crosby, who is responsible for their election campaign strategy is so heavily involved in promoting private healthcare and sees insufficient government funding as an opportunity should ring warning bells! “A strategy paper, drawn up by Mr Crosby’s firm CTF Partners and seen by The Independent, proposed targeting key government figures, including the Prime Minister, to enhance the “size, acceptability and profitability of the private healthcare market”. It also stated that “insufficient public funds” were a strategic “opportunity” for private healthcare firms. It added the campaign’s long-term strategy should be “achieving decision-maker recognition that health investment in the UK can only grow by expanding the role and contribution made by the private sector”. “ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-tory-election-chief-lynton-crosbys-firm-planned-to-expand-role-of-private-healthcare-in-the-uk-10223112.html A vote for Nick Clegg is a vote for the Conservatives-either in coalition or independently
  6. Because the 'bedroom tax' zero hours contracts and cuts to disability benefit and care services aren't where they can give directly and can be seen to hit those who most need help. SOme people actually do care for others, not just themselves. If Osborne proved his post-election cuts weren't going to be where people would think they were completely wrong he would say where they are going to be felt, but he consistently refuses to say. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 21:42 ---------- And it will be Osborne not Boris who takes over after Cameron
  7. I think a lot of the Coppard success is down to the same way Richard Allan won for the LibDems-he is local and can be seen to have local connections and interests. Allan did really well, he was an excellent MP. Nothing to say Coppard won't do the same,
  8. Maybe they would rather vote for a fairer society, despite having the 'mansions' ?
  9. Even that bastion of toryland the Daily Telegraph says Clegg will either win by 1,000 or lose by 1,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11567634/The-age-of-Nick-Clegg-is-drawing-to-an-end.html It is too close to call. No certainty or heartland of conservatism about it
  10. They weren't voting tactically to put Richard Allan and then Nick Clegg in if it is naturally Tory-why didn't they keep voting Conservative as it always had been? Why did it change to LibDem?
  11. For those of you who believe that Labour voters on here don’t live in Sheffield Hallam I suspect one reason is it’s never been worth voting Labour before, it’s been a wasted vote as Labour were so far behind. LibDems got all the anti-Tory votes. This year, because the Conservatives are tacitly supporting the LibDems, Labour is the anti-tory vote AND real Labour voters finally feel that their vote might count. There is actually a candidate and a team who look like they believe they can win.
  12. Gas and electric are private cmpanies too but they have regulation. I don't see why rental properties shouldn't too.
  13. I agree that many landlords have rental properties for their business and I have come across many good ones. As you say there are rubbish tenants and the 6 month contracts initially would make sure that landlords could get rid of them. At the moment rents are going up so fast all the time, and many people can't afford anywhere the size they would like and can't afford to buy either. It's a bit like fixing a contract with the gas & electric, if you know what you are paying for 2 years and know it can't rise by more than inflation it gives you some stability. i don't think that is unreasonable
  14. I can’t see why pegging rents to inflation would result in poor accommodation. It works in other countries, and it gives some security to people, who would know they could afford the rent for at least a couple of years before they might have to think about moving on. I have lots of family in rented accommodation and they have a variety of good/bad landlords and it isn’t determined by how expensive the rent is but by how good a person they are and whether they are interested in keeping good tenants or making as much as they can and not care about the quality of life their tenants have at all. Good tenants deserve good landlords and fair rents. The fact that the rent pegging and longer contracts don’t come into force for 6 months gives the landlords a chance to get rid of tenants they don’t want. All huge rents do is result in people on low incomes having to claim housing benefit and the state puts the money in the landlords pockets-another way of looking after the rich.
  15. I think Oliver Coppard’s promises are pretty much the same as Richard Allan’s were when he stood for the LibDems, and he was an excellent MP. On the local issue, I wasn’t born or raised here but my kids were and I want someone who will committ themselves to supporting the constituency rather than just the party. I also think Labour nationally has more concern for young people and a return of rent controls has to be a good thing. The continual increase in rents means young adults can’t afford to even rent away from home and feel like adults, let alone be in a position to buy. I would like to see him go further and reintroduce fair rents. They worked well, giving a good income for the landlords and security for tenants. And a living wage would mean that the government isn’t subsiding employers by constantly topping up wages with housing benefit and other benefits, if they had a living wage they wouldn’t be claiming benefits and they would be paying taxes-it would be a win-win for the treasury. And further, on privatisation of the NHS I don’t want the Tories to have their hands on it for another Parliament. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/far-more-nhs-contracts-going-to-private-firms-than-ministers-admit-privatisation So if Oliver Coppard is promising to be a good local MP and obviously support Labour then I think he will be the best for the constituency
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.