Discussion of the UK Government
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
By new puritan
Membership Days Posts
#284518
Charlie Elphicke might actually be a bigger cunt than Redwood. Thick as well.
It is also unfair on those people who are not in work, because they have no incentive to go and seek work. We need to provide that incentive, not because we want to attack people who are unemployed but because we want to give them every incentive to get work, realise their potential and take the opportunity to do really well in life and be a great success.
No incentive to seek work my arse. Being unemployed is shit and JSA is a pittance. Fuck off.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#284520
new puritan wrote:Charlie Elphicke might actually be a bigger cunt than Redwood. Thick as well.
It is also unfair on those people who are not in work, because they have no incentive to go and seek work. We need to provide that incentive, not because we want to attack people who are unemployed but because we want to give them every incentive to get work, realise their potential and take the opportunity to do really well in life and be a great success.
No incentive to seek work my arse. Being unemployed is shit and JSA is a pittance. Fuck off.
We could call that incentive "tax credits" or something.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#311018
John Redwood has asked people not to mention Voting Tory on his website-

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/05/13 ... -this-site" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Apparently Redwood wants "to use this break from the hustings to revise my approach to posting party political material."
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#311022
A Vulcan wrote:It is any way better if you wish to post pro party material to do it from a regulated site. As we get nearer to a General Election it is even more important that all such postings should be through a regulated site making proper expense returns, with an imprint on the material under Election law.
I'd like the opinion of Abers, or any other contributors who have been election agents. Does a comment on a website, even one exhorting people to vote for a particular candidate, count as election matter? It seems to me to be a very strange interpretation of the rules.

I looked up the advice given by the Electoral Commission (which is definitive).
On the question of an imprint, basically the agent or party address:
What is an imprint?
1.25
An imprint must, by law, be added to campaign material to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure that the campaign is transparent.
Fine, anybody knows that. Does it apply to websites?
Websites and other electronic material
1.33
You should also put an imprint on electronic material, such as websites and emails. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced.
OK, it doesn't say that a website, outside of an election period, has to have an imprint, just that one 'should' be transparent. That's the website of the candidate, not other websites. It doesn't state that a website in which a commenter exhorts others to vote for a candidate must become an official campaign website under the terms of the Electoral Communications rules.

The only other regulation I could find that might bear on this is
Campaign publicity material
1.52
Certain offences relate specifically to election campaign publicity material. Election campaign publicity material must contain an imprint, not resemble a poll card and not contain a false statement as to the personal character or conduct of another candidate.
So I really don't see what Redwood's on about. Provided no false statements as to another candidate's character or conduct are published (har har DM...) no law has been broken.

Pity the same rules don't apply to newspaper comments.
 
By Abernathy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#311026
Think you're broadly right there, Malc. I can't see what Redwood is worried about other than UKIP wingnuts hi-jacking his website comments and flooding it with pro UKIP material.

Website comments have been being made during election periods since at least 1997 as far as I can recall, and there's no inkling whatsoever of the Electoral Commission getting twitchy about that now.

A red herring, but slightly puzzling.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#311056
Abernathy wrote:Think you're broadly right there, Malc. I can't see what Redwood is worried about other than UKIP wingnuts hi-jacking his website comments and flooding it with pro UKIP material.
Although they are making their presence known on his comments section.

As for his excuse I was reading his tone as trying to sound high minded as a way of encouraging UKIP comments without his party telling him off; Lets be above party politics and concentrate on Redwood the constituency MP and learned academic to be more 'inclusive'.
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#524847
John Redwood criticised over advice to pull money out of UK
The piece was published on 3 November but came to greater prominence after a scathing comment piece was published over the weekend by a Forbes commentator, Frances Coppola, who wrote that the MP had “advocated a course of action by the UK government that he knows would seriously damage the UK economy”.
Follow Coppola wrote: “To protect his job as an investment manager, he warned his wealthy clients to get their money out before the disaster hits. To me, this smacks of disaster capitalism. Engineer a crash while ensuring your own interests are protected, then clean up when it hits. This is despicable behaviour by a lawmaker.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... itain-down" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#547108
Redwood being a really weird knob in an interview again. Looking tired as well.
John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham, had appeared on Channel 4 News to discuss trade options with the European Union after Brexit.

But the veteran Eurosceptic reacted with fury when host Jon Snow opened the interview by suggesting that cabinet was riven by “civil war” and insubordination not seen in a Conservative government since World War

Mr Redwood said: “This isn’t the interview I agreed to give.

“I was asked to come on and talk about the evolution of the government’s policy and the state of the negotiations, which is what matters to the public. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/98305 ... y-Jon-Snow
The Mail & Climate Change

The sort of people who are frightened by a littl[…]

How is Margaret Hodge to know if a particular ab[…]

Labour, Generally.

Not much evidence North East Remain MPs suffered i[…]

No? You must realise that there are separate issue[…]