Talkswindon

Politics: Swindon & Westminster => Political News & Debate => Robert Buckland MP - Swindon South => Topic started by: Got Signal on September 09, 2011, 10:18:45 AM

Title: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Got Signal on September 09, 2011, 10:18:45 AM
How did they vote on the Dorres wotsit and of course the NHS. Did they vote to privatise the NHS?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: komadori on September 09, 2011, 12:33:03 PM
Courtesy of the Public Whip website, voting record of Mr Buckland (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Robert_Buckland&mpc=South_Swindon&house=commons&display=allvotes#divisions), and voting record of Mr Tomlinson (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Justin_Tomlinson&mpc=North_Swindon&house=commons&display=allvotes#divisions).

Both voted in favour of Ms Dorries' amendment and in favour of the National Health Service and Social Care Bill. I'm not aware of there being a vote about privatising the NHS.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Anne Snelgrove on October 11, 2011, 01:19:11 PM
Last night (Monday 10 October) the House of Commons debated the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The bill is also being debated today so the final votes have not been held yet, but it may be of interest to political debate on TalkSwindon to see how our local MPs voted.

The Bill has had its first and second readings and has gone through the Committee stage, where it was scrutinised line by line by a small number of MPs. The whole House now has the opportunity to debate the changes made at Committee stage, and vote on further new clauses brought forward by MPs.

How Swindon’s MPs voted:
AGAINST retaining DNA on the database for six years, instead of three
AGAINST an amendment that would have regulated rogue car park ticketing as well as rogue wheel clampers
Both times they voted with the Government.
Further votes will be taken today.

The big debate last night was on the retention of DNA evidence. This is essentially a balance between civil liberties – why DNA should be retained if the person was found not guilty - and the use of DNA in securing convictions several years after crimes were committed.

My opinion is that keeping DNA indefinitely is wrong, but changes to the DNA database will make it harder, not easier, for the police to catch and convict dangerous criminals, because DNA will be retained only for three years, not six as recommended by police experts. The Government’s weakening of the DNA database goes against the Home Office’s own evidence.

For example, 17,000 people arrested but not charged with rape will be removed from the database and 23,000 criminals a year will no longer be on the database commit further crimes, including 6,000 serious crimes. This research was not published by the Government at the time.

To read the debate on DNA retention, click http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0003.htm  (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0003.htm)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 11, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
Can you tell us Ann, what your record was for voting with the government and not what the voters wanted..
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 11, 2011, 06:09:45 PM
Last night (Monday 10 October) the House of Commons debated the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The bill is also being debated today so the final votes have not been held yet, but it may be of interest to political debate on TalkSwindon to see how our local MPs voted.

The Bill has had its first and second readings and has gone through the Committee stage, where it was scrutinised line by line by a small number of MPs. The whole House now has the opportunity to debate the changes made at Committee stage, and vote on further new clauses brought forward by MPs.

How Swindon’s MPs voted:
AGAINST retaining DNA on the database for six years, instead of three
AGAINST an amendment that would have regulated rogue car park ticketing as well as rogue wheel clampers
Both times they voted with the Government.
Further votes will be taken today.

The big debate last night was on the retention of DNA evidence. This is essentially a balance between civil liberties – why DNA should be retained if the person was found not guilty - and the use of DNA in securing convictions several years after crimes were committed.

My opinion is that keeping DNA indefinitely is wrong, but changes to the DNA database will make it harder, not easier, for the police to catch and convict dangerous criminals, because DNA will be retained only for three years, not six as recommended by police experts. The Government’s weakening of the DNA database goes against the Home Office’s own evidence.

For example, 17,000 people arrested but not charged with rape will be removed from the database and 23,000 criminals a year will no longer be on the database commit further crimes, including 6,000 serious crimes. This research was not published by the Government at the time.

To read the debate on DNA retention, click [url]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0003.htm[/url]  ([url]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111010/debtext/111010-0003.htm[/url])


"Arrested but not charged" should not lead to a supposition of guilt. The use of the word 'criminals' in the same sentence suggests all those arrested are de facto criminals: not true.

Regardless of the crime, the govt's own line is:

Quote
If you're released without charge
When the police have finished investigating they may release you because they:

•are satisfied you’re not involved in the crime
•don't have enough evidence to charge you with the crime

Even if they have enough evidence, they won’t necessarily charge you. You could be given a caution or warning instead of having to go to court.


I'm sorry to be so serious, but it's this disregard towards human rights which puts me off voting for Labour. 5 million people already have their DNA held - why should we have more non-guilty people on it? What would that achieve?

A good overview of the opposition to the database here: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478 (http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 11, 2011, 06:23:48 PM
'Police experts'? Who Anne?

The police and security experts I've spoken to in the last few years seem as divided on this issue as anyone. It could be argued that if you want to catch as many rapists and murderers as possible, EVERYONE should be on the DNA database FOREVER. Its only a small extension from that position to increasing the creep of CCTV to say, a vidi camera in every home to monitor the behaviour of all good citizens, heh? Now where did I read about that idea... Afterall, if we've nothing to hide, we've nothing to fear, eh?

Part of the basic, fundamental provisions of legal equality and freedom from oppression in this country has been based upon the assumption of innocence. If a plod wrongfully arrests me and my record remains unblemished, then no one has the right to keep my or any other free citizens DNA records - especially when they will end up stored on a government owned/sponsored computer database of questionable security and when it represents a terrible risk for abuse or mistake.

Before you comment on the voting record of your replacements Anne, please reflect upon your own - and the position you chose to take with those of us who questioned the direction Labour policy was headed - supported and consistently voted for by you. There's a rather large log in your own eye which requires extraction.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 11, 2011, 06:52:19 PM
From Yvette Cooper

Quote
And Conference, this is the Tory government that wants to slash the DNA database despite the fact that it helped catch rioters, and it helps solve thousands of crimes each year. In ten days time they plan to vote to take 17,000 suspected rapists off the database, despite the evidence from the police and Rape Crisis that this will make it even harder to bring rapists to justice and prevent this horrible crime.


As a woman, I object to the emotive use of rape as an example to support the DNA database. It's not about locking up rioters or rapists. In fact, turn the example on its head... this summer, you were walking through an area of London and a riot was taking place. The police rounded you up, along with everyone else and arrested you. You were released after 8 hours having committed no crime. You are innocent of any crime but your DNA will be held for 3 years. 6 if Labour get their way.

This is immoral and illegal. The European Court of Human Rights is quite clear on this one. If this is Labour's official position, that you deserve another 4 years in the wilderness.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 11, 2011, 06:55:48 PM
Actually, could we set up a database of the banking details for every MP and ex-MP censured or even suspected of misusing the expenses system. You know, just in case? And keep it in the public domain, yeah? If you've done nothing wrong, what's there to hide?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 11, 2011, 07:55:03 PM
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/anne_snelgrove/south_swindon (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/anne_snelgrove/south_swindon)

There you go, unless someone else has done it.

Quite liking the MP database thingy, how about performance tables as well? In the National Press perhaps....

Be riots in a week, or DNA donation drive as they are now known.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 12, 2011, 12:50:03 AM
Quote
As a woman, I object to the emotive use of rape as an example to support the DNA database. It's not about locking up rioters or rapists. In fact, turn the example on its head... this summer, you were walking through an area of London and a riot was taking place. The police rounded you up, along with everyone else and arrested you. You were released after 8 hours having committed no crime. You are innocent of any crime but your DNA will be held for 3 years. 6 if Labour get their way.

This is immoral and illegal. The European Court of Human Rights is quite clear on this one. If this is Labour's official position, that you deserve another 4 years in the wilderness.


Quite brilliantly put -  :clap:

I'm really genuinely frustrated, surprised and disappointed that people who I really genuinely respect have chosen to align themselves with a party which propounds such stupid, illiberal and downright terrifying doctrine.

Just because you might have an issue with aspects of conservative policy does not and should not mean that you become an ally of this sort of philosophy, surely?

I'd invite those who do to visit this thread and explain please: http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7997.msg69863;topicseen#msg69863 (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7997.msg69863;topicseen#msg69863)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chris Watts on October 12, 2011, 02:32:35 AM
I'm really genuinely frustrated, surprised and disappointed that people who I really genuinely respect have chosen to align themselves with a party which propounds such stupid, illiberal and downright terrifying doctrine.
My general philosophy in life is to try and get in amongst it and see if you can affect change or make a difference (Not just in politics). You need a set of core principles that you can hang your hat on with a realisation that you are not going to get 100% consensus all the time in any group of people.

For example, when I played football we had a new manager who believed in the 4-3-1-2 diamond formation with attacking wingbacks. It was a bit too European and technical for my liking but we worked with it for a while before returning to the good old British 4-4-2 formation, with shorts below the knees, a woodbine at half time and a bottle of stout in the bar après les game. In the first part of the season I could of said "screw this" and picked up me ball and gone home. Instead a few of us worked on the manager and got him to change his methods. (we still got spanked most weeks but at least our knees were warm)

There is a shed load of metaphors in there. :)

(Please do not take this reply as me being conceited, I have no idea who you genuinely respect. Just thought I would chuck in my two-penneth.)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 12, 2011, 07:59:53 AM
You are genuinely one of those I respect Chris!!!

I hope that people like you can make the changes which are needed. Old fashioned capitalism has been shown for the inherent eternal gamble with life and prosperity which even its most ardent supporters have to concede it is. Some sort of political and philosophical balance based around morality and common care is needed over and above greed, expedience and self interest.

But in their own way, when Harman comes up with the dangerous bag of bollocks she did the other day, its no exaggeration to say that your mission looks similar to joining the BNP on the basis of trying to do the same thing.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Muggins on October 12, 2011, 08:59:13 AM
Daft question maybe, but I can understand police taking DNA, and if used properly could help no end with crime solving, but why should they keep that for three years?  and why does Labour think its a good idea to keep it for 6, sounds like a bit of tinkering for the sake of tinkering to me. Or are the police asking for the longer lenght of time, if so, why so?

ps, not that it worries me if they have mine and they can keep it for ever, so perhaps that's one way forward, them that don't care could let their DNA be on a register, and then, if a crime is committed, a process of elimination takes place, if it's not on that register, then it's in the part of the population who are not DNA'd!

Where you up by the town hall between 12noon  and 20 past yesterday Tobes?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 12, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Harman comes up with the dangerous bag of bollocks

Bollocks are not safe anywhere near Harman, she thinks they are sexist and would like to legislate them out of existence, for now a blunt instrument will do.

That's the thing with the politics isn't it, if you express agreement with a policy, or even a band of policies, they immediately take it as read they have your vote and you support everything they blather on about. If you voted Labour you were in favour of ID cards, they ascibe the same behaviours to the electorate as their MP's exhibit, that's far too restrictive and unrepresentative.

Why can't we have pick and mix politics?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chris Watts on October 12, 2011, 09:39:35 AM
You are genuinely one of those I respect Chris!!!
After laying myself bare to you last night it is good that you still respect me in the morning.  :o
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Anne Snelgrove on October 12, 2011, 10:13:37 AM
Glad to see I've started a healthy debate. Surely if you disagree with DNA being kept for 6 years you also disagree with it being kept at all? Otherwise what are your arguments for keeping it 3 years? If you are all true libertarians, i.e. anti id cards, anti DNA retention, anti 30+ day detention, you will surely not support the Tory/Lib Dem position on these as well?

Go on, make the argument instead of flinging insults!

 :fence:
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Muggins on October 12, 2011, 11:44:12 AM
Careful, Anne, I never said I was against the keeping of DNA, I've already said they can mine and keep it for as long as they like.

I wanted to know (as I always do) that if a strange or unpopular decision is made, what prompted it?  There must have been a good reason at the time, so if you can hare that please do.

Then, being better informed, the majority might still not agree with the decisions but understand better why they were made. 
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 12, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
You can have my DNA when I'm dead. If you pay for my funeral.

Or

You can buy it, then rent it, cash of course, no euros.

I don't think anyone would have difficulty with their DNA being held if it was an all in, or all out exercise with absolutely transparent legislation protecting it. I think alarm spreads because of successive Government's inability to prevent mission creep, and their willingness for the agencies to flog off citizens' data to turn a quick buck to any bugger who wants it. Apparently.

Mind you they don't have to flog it given the astonishing ability to lose things.

Some might say that the two are unconnected but I think a previous poster's remark about MP's showing us theirs if we donate ours has some real merit. A really transparent Government could at least advance the 'If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' argument with some authority. I still think the expenses debacle was buried with indecent haste and bent practices still occur, look at that Dr Fox bunging a couple of days of holiday onto official visits to spend some time with his mate, couple of days in the places he was staying could have paid heating bills for a year or two for 'ordinary' people. I wouldn't trust him with the bloody tea club money, which I will of course pay back at some point, let alone my DNA.

DNA is too important to entrust to Government, or any Government body. Everything it's given to do it breaks, fecks up or goes over budget. I'd probably trust Tesco though, or my milkman, he's very reliable.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Muggins on October 12, 2011, 05:17:03 PM

Mart:  "You can have my DNA"

See what I did there, I ought to be a journalist.  ;D

I could get your DNA easy peasy, slip a packet of ear buds in me pocket, go down your allotment, hide behind the hedge until you've finished then get a sample off the lock to your shed.  Or if your car was in the car park, get sample off the car handle.

I can promise you I wouldn't lose it afterwards, but if I did I wouldn't have it any more would I.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 12, 2011, 06:09:28 PM
the reply from the lady from bassett says it all and surely you cant argue with that arguement, and I see Ms Cooper has been mentiond, wasnt she the lady person who thought up HIPS,,(her old man was one of the 'advisors' to Mr Brown), who brought out the 10p fiasco......
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 13, 2011, 12:44:07 AM
@Mart

Quote
Why can't we have pick and mix politics?

I reckon because very few politicians have the strength of character or belief to do what's right as opposed to doing what's expedient. Defying the whip - or at least party manifesto or policy takes guts, principal - and in fairness to Anne, is likely to shorten your political career (though ultimately, not reflecting or understanding your electorates views will have the same result!). But therin lies the fundamental flaw in our entire system. A party getting elected with a majority in a first past the post system is working on a tiered list of 'mean average' manifesto pledges which attempt to blend their political doctrine with things which chime with a bigger chunk of the population than the opposition. Frequently those things represent a majority of public opinion not the majority. Note the difference. It also means that to be selected, the candidate must be seen as a safe and loyal pair of hands... that automatically means compromising what they believe - or what their electorate might believe - in order to reflect the vision which the party imposes.

Parties obsessed by simplistic searching for public opinion also miss the nuances of what people really think (and why) - and also avoid the obvious conclusions and ramifications resulting from knee-jerk policy making. For instance, if after 9/11 you had polled people to see if they thought that terrorism was something they were extremely worried about and which they wanted govt. to protect them from, you'd read huge approval. However, it would not imply a mandate for all sorts of errosions of civil liberties - things which (irony of ironies!) the very terrorists themselves have imposed and approve of in the countries in which their views have held sway.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 13, 2011, 01:30:45 AM
Quote
Surely if you disagree with DNA being kept for 6 years you also disagree with it being kept at all? Otherwise what are your arguments for keeping it 3 years? If you are all true libertarians, i.e. anti id cards, anti DNA retention, anti 30+ day detention, you will surely not support the Tory/Lib Dem position on these as well?

Go on, make the argument instead of flinging insults!


 :wink: Fair enough - I've been pretty rude in the past and you've made me feel embarrassed that I have been uncivil. But please understand, its difficult to keep a polite tongue when some of the proposals are so deeply illogical or immoral - and I don't apologise for attacking those things, or their supporters.

DNA records. I have no issue with DNA being kept on record if someone is convicted of a (serious) offence. No different than mug-shots, finger prints or anything else. Keeping records on people unconvicted or not being actively investigated is a different kettle of fish. Why?

Reason 1. The reason I believe so strongly in the moral iniquity of this policy, you have over-turned the fundamental principal of innocence until proven guilty. That has served well for 100s of years as a pretty fundamental aspect of UK law - and a guiding principal of civil liberty in a country which thrives without the ridiculous encumbrance of a written constitution.

What you are excusing is a system in which the state keeps police records on people merely for having been picked up and questioned. Taking DNA off people (using force if necessary, please note) who have committed no crime in the eyes of the law, is to treat ALL citizens of this country as de facto suspects. That is highly totalitarian - and if you check your definitions of what fascism means, explains why its the sort of policy which would get the thumbs up from dictators right around the globe.

Reason 2. Think logically about the ramifications of this policy. On the one hand, its bound at some level to result in more convictions, as the police steadily harvest more and more data, which will, inevitably, given the vast numbers involved, allow evidential links to be made. However, from a police perspective, this has now given them an extra and rather ugly agenda. Every new record harvested and put on that database ups the chances of more convictions. More convictions means happy politicans who can read the latest increases in conviction rates (and therefore by implication, protecting more money for the police!). The only means the police have of enhancing and increasing that database is to pull people in and extract more DNA. There is a huge danger of pretexts being used here to allow the police to gather this information without actually having gathered any evidence to require it - and to do it using force.

Reason 3. DNA is still being viewed as a panacea and as virtually irrefutable evidence. However, as the size of the database increases, so do the percentage chances of ordinary and innocent citizens who's data has been picked up in this way being needlessly implicated in crimes with which they had no connection what-so-ever. But don't take my word for it - see what many of the experts themselves say: http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57 (http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=57)

Quote
If you are all true libertarians, i.e. anti id cards, anti DNA retention, anti 30+ day detention, you will surely not support the Tory/Lib Dem position on these as well?


Absolutely - I for one can't support it as the correct policy. However, its just that as true libertarians we can see that by halving the period, they are at least half as bad as you were. If Robert and Justin had voted against the bill, we'd still be left with the 6 years you imposed upon us (you did vote for the original legislation, did you not?).

What are YOU actually proposing then Anne? Or are you point scoring?  :-\

The bottom line for me and many others who's understanding reaches further than the Daily Panic, is that if you have not been convicted of any crime and are not being investigated, you should not have a police record. That's as simple and fair relationship between a law abiding citizen, the state and its (supposedly OUR) police as you can get, surely?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Anne Snelgrove on October 13, 2011, 10:48:00 AM
Great stuff Tobes. I agree with some of your arguments but not all, and I'm certainly not interested in political point scoring (too boring). Hopwever, I'll have to come back to you later with counter arguments as I have to do some work for a few hours!

Watch this space.....

 :hippy: Pink Pashmina, remember that?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 13, 2011, 11:01:19 PM
Quote
Pink Pashmina, remember that?

Actually Anne, whilst I was quite vociferous, I wasn't usually quite so personal. I think the dislike of your pashmina and the subsequent sobriquet came from either ZPW or our very own Geoff! (if you saw the sorry state of my attire, you'd see why I generally avoid daring to criticise the sartorial taste of others  :wink: )

 :angel:

Thank you for taking the time to debate here. I'd be interested to hear the counter arguments on the DNA question.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 14, 2011, 06:53:30 AM
There is of course the wider wuestion of how we expect our MPs to vote, which would be useful to clarify befor they are elected.

Do MPs vote on their own conscience? If so, it's useful to know the person they are before votiong for them.

Do MPs vote on the party line? Then it's useful to read the national manifestos

Do MPs vote to reflect the views on their constituents? Then you want someone who actively gets involved in the local area.

Chances are, the MPs will never do all three at the same time, but will do the first or second (while claiming they're doing the third). Not necessarily a problem, but it does contribute to the confusion and disappointment some feel when the MP votes against local interests.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 06:23:27 PM
I have just seen the news ITV and Justin Tomlinson was mentioned as one of the MPs who are going to go against the Tory administration by voting AGAINST the EU Referendum.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 24, 2011, 06:51:18 PM
I'd respect him a bit more if he did.

Someone's going to have to explain to me, slowly, why polls and this petition thingy are secondary to what the nasty whip man says. Perhaps if this had happened closer to an election there would be a different outcome?

The UK is like a swimmer toiling across the Channel with the drowning man that is the EU clinging to our neck. Normally I'd feel quite compassionate, but this drowning man is drowning because he's been gorging in the trough, troughing at the grain mountain and slurping from the wine lake at our expense for 36 feckin years.

I find it frustrating (can you tell) that all three leaders are expending such energy to get a 'no' vote in Parliament where a 'yes' vote from the public was such a certainty.

I've just watched Milliband slagging off Cameron neatly ignoring the fact that he's going to bully his MP's (some less than others) to vote the same way.

I could rant for ever on this, but I'm fairly comfortable with the idea that I'd eel the same way if the subject was one where I actually agreed with the Government, it's the flafgrant disregard for Democracy through a communication channel that Government actually championed that irks me.

Sorry, I'm foaming up now.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 08:05:08 PM
Well according  to the news ITV there are quite a few Tory MPs voting against the EU with some abstaining.

It will be interesting.

David Cameron said something along the lines of, 'if your house was on fire, you would make sure you put your own fire out before saving your neighbours,' - well something like that. I am sure someone will know what he said word for word.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-15425256?psdata=11_3_8_4_9_10__CD11__CK12_14_15_ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-politics-15425256?psdata=11_3_8_4_9_10__CD11__CK12_14_15_)

There is a bit of a rebellion going on inside the camp!
It demonstrates that just because you represent a political party does not necessarily mean you agree with everything they do.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 08:07:32 PM
Quote
Sorry, I'm foaming up now.
Mart please  don't foam up, we may lose you in amongst the bubbles  :wink:
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: swindoncentric on October 24, 2011, 08:42:55 PM
According to a tweet by BBC Wiltshire, Justin Tomlinson will vote for a referendum, which the North Swindon MP has retweeted!

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 08:46:14 PM
According to a tweet by BBC Wiltshire, Justin Tomlinson will vote for a referendum, which the North Swindon MP has retweeted!
How strange!
I will see if i can find the link on ITV player for the news. I know I didn't dream it!
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Russell Holland on October 24, 2011, 08:48:53 PM
We were out canvassing on Saturday and Justin confirmed he is voting for a referendum.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 09:10:06 PM
http://www.itv.com/news/fullprogramme/ (http://www.itv.com/news/fullprogramme/)

Yes I do apologies  - i have posted the link.
You will have to excuse me - i am blonde and dipsy at times  :embarassed:

I had me headphones in and picked up key words so i didn't hear all of it .
Silly me.
I do apologise - but its still exciting   >:D

Did anyone else hear the names of some of the MPs mentioned on the News tonight ?
Please tell me I am not going that crazy ................ yet !


Chav
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 24, 2011, 09:25:24 PM
I have just seen the news ITV and Justin Tomlinson was mentioned as one of the MPs who are going to go against the Tory administration by voting AGAINST the EU Referendum.

Just to clarify - he is voting against what David Cameron wants as in voting FOR a referendum to do with the EU .

I was sort of right but sort of wrong - i think my hearing was doing the okey cokey as I had me earphones in playing Angry Birds on me Android Pad while watching the telly at the same time !

That will teach me wont it  O0

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 24, 2011, 11:17:06 PM
Well, good for Justin for voting either for what he strongly believes in, or what the majority of his constituents want (hopefully a blend of the two).

The first thing which ought to go in a reformed House of Commons is the whip. Its an outmoded and completely undemocratic process.

How did Mr B vote?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: the gorgon on October 24, 2011, 11:34:46 PM
According to a tweet by BBC Wiltshire, Justin Tomlinson will vote for a referendum, which the North Swindon MP has retweeted!

Wonder if Justin asked any North Swindon businesses (other than a certain pub in S. Marston) about their thoughts on a referendum?  You know like Honda and BMW.

Did the majority of people in N. Swindon want a referendum or was it just a vocal minority? Most people I know really don't care about Europe, they care about jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage.  The only times they really seem bothered are when the media whip people up into a frenzy about Europe.

Personally this whole vote strikes me almost as fiddling whilst Rome burns. We're possibly looking at a double dip recession and instead of sorting out the economy 100,000 people have managed to make the government and MPs waste their time on this (even if the government lost they were under no obligation to do anything).   :idiot2:
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Alex on October 25, 2011, 07:01:36 AM
Well, good for Justin for voting either for what he strongly believes in, or what the majority of his constituents want (hopefully a blend of the two).

The first thing which ought to go in a reformed House of Commons is the whip. Its an outmoded and completely undemocratic process.

How did Mr B vote?

Mr B tweets that he would oppose the motion, but that it was his own decision.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Muggins on October 25, 2011, 09:46:14 AM
Gorgon: Did the majority of people in N. Swindon want a referendum or was it just a vocal minority? Most people I know really don't care about Europe, they care about jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage.  The only times they really seem bothered are when the media whip people up into a frenzy about Europe.

I agree with Gorgon, rather than having a *referendum about having a referendum, the times are such that the other things mentioned in his post are more important at this time.

*Which Justin would need to do, to know if he was really representing the people of North Swindon on this subject.   



Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Terry Reynolds on October 25, 2011, 01:35:40 PM
If people dont regard the EU in anyway, then I wonder why people say about jobs etc, due to eu regs we have an open door policy to immigrants, who then take up our jobs, we plough billions into the EU and they cant even ratify their accounts let alone use them wisely, new laws every day, regarding such important issues like bendy cucumbers etc, meanwhile the money we do plough into the EU, could transform our country overnight.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Chav on October 25, 2011, 02:43:31 PM
If people dont regard the EU in anyway, then I wonder why people say about jobs etc, due to eu regs we have an open door policy to immigrants, who then take up our jobs, we plough billions into the EU and they cant even ratify their accounts let alone use them wisely, new laws every day, regarding such important issues like bendy cucumbers etc, meanwhile the money we do plough into the EU, could transform our country overnight.
There's nowt wrong with a bendy cucumber - you just have to watch your fingers when slicing round the bend.  :D
My grandad always grew bendy cucumbers in his greenhouse   :)
I agree Kohima too much food gets wasted because of silly laws. Nothing wrong with bendy cucumbers or bananas or Mis-shaped eggs. They are all edible  :wink:
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 25, 2011, 03:22:54 PM
James Grey also voted in favour of a referendum.

The biggest impact from leaving the EU could be to what's left of British agriculture. This is from Wikipedia, so take it with a large pinch of subsidised salt:

Quote
The UK would have been contributing more money to the EU than any other EU member state, except that Margaret Thatcher's government negotiated a special annual UK rebate in 1984. Due to the way the rebate is funded, France pays the largest share of the rebate (31%), followed by Italy (24%) and Spain (14%)

The discrepancy in CAP funding is a cause of some consternation in the UK. As of 2004, France received 13% of total CAP funds more than the UK. This is a net benefit to France of €6.37 billion, compared to the UK. This is largely a reflection of the fact that France has more than double the land area of the UK. In comparison, the UK budget rebate for 2005 is scheduled to be approx €5.5 billion. The popular view in the UK (as, for example, set forth in the tabloid press) is that if the UK rebate were reduced with no change to the CAP, then the UK would be paying money to keep an inefficient French farming sector in business – to many people in the UK, this would be seen as "grossly unfair". French motives for generating arguments about "solidarity" and "selfishness" are therefore seen as extremely self-serving.

If the rebate were removed without changes to the CAP then the UK would pay a net contribution of 14 times that of the French (In 2005 EU budget terms). The UK would make a net contribution of €8.25 billion compared to the current contribution of €2.75 billion, versus a current French net contribution of €0.59 billion.

In December 2005 the UK agreed to give up approximately 20% of the rebate for the period 2007–2013, on condition that the funds did not contribute to CAP payments, were matched by other countries' contributions and were only for the new member states. Spending on the CAP remained fixed, as had previously been agreed. Overall, this reduced the proportion of the budget spent on the CAP. It was agreed that the European Commission should conduct a full review of all EU spending.


Also http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm)

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 25, 2011, 10:42:52 PM
Quote
Did the majority of people in N. Swindon want a referendum or was it just a vocal minority?

The only way to find out would be to ASK them... what are you suggesting, a referendum on a referendum in order to prove it one way or the other?!

Quote
Most people I know really don't care about Europe, they care about jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage.  The only times they really seem bothered are when the media whip people up into a frenzy about Europe.

I think thats a pretty flawed position. MOST (in fact almost all) the people I know have been bothered by the issue of our involvement with Europe at some stage or another - from concern as to whether we really get more than we put in, to EU law, supposedly open borders to defence policy and EU federalisation. That ranges from local businessmen, colleagues in international corporates, down to people down the pub, friends and family.

A national vote would/should suit pro Europeans - if they can win the argument, it would finally resolve many of the underlying disquiet which an increasingly large percentage of the population feel. The fiscal collapse of Europe has proven that the experiment has been hugely flawed, as it shows one of its founding principals was... well, frankly, bollocks. An open common market should have allowed us to avoid the knock-on of greedy yank estate agents and bankers, shouldn't it?

We have suffered inequalities of input and reward, we have suffered financially and culturally because of imposed restrictions - and now face the prospect of having to use our limited funds to help subsidise/bail out corrupt administrations who've sat for 20 years over tax dodging, subsidy scrounging citizens. THAT at this very time, HAS to make the question of the level of our continuing involvement ENTIRELY apposite!!

Our national involvement at this level of integration - with all three parties either pro or 'expediently ambiguous' about Europe - is without proper mandate. Failure to address this simply hands more support to the likes of the far right wing.

Blaming the media is a weak side step too, in my opinion. Using your logic, I could just as easily say 'I don't think any of the following issues are worth worrying about' either:

Most people I know really don't care about murder, they care about jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage.  The only times they really seem bothered are when the media whip people up into a frenzy about murder.

Most people I know really don't care about paedophiles, they care about jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage.  The only times they really seem bothered are when the media whip people up into a frenzy about paedophiles.

'Jobs, health, schools, paying the mortgage' - these things all ENTIRELY depend upon and are shaped by the nature of our relationship with and membership to the EU.

If the EU is demonstrably being shown to be falling apart at the seams, its time to take that question to the people who will be paying for the continuation of the experiment - us, the tax payers and the people who haven't been given a clear vote for over 30 years.

... and now I will pause for breath and pour a beer.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Alex on October 26, 2011, 03:35:37 PM
There is a difference between "not being bothered about the EU"  and feeling so overwhelmed at the enormity of the change that would be needed to make it work well that , like the size of our national debt, you put it to one side and try not to let it blight your life.

As people become more engaged in the "democracy" - or what passes for it in this country, and bother to read and find things out on the internet and as they discuss these topics on-line, maybe there will be more people who will be bothered and feel able to do something about it. Hence the protests against the status quo and exploitation of 99% by the 1%- even though the media are trying hard to discredit them.

 Small steps.....

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: the gorgon on October 26, 2011, 07:05:29 PM
There is a difference between "not being bothered about the EU"  and feeling so overwhelmed at the enormity of the change that would be needed to make it work well that , like the size of our national debt, you put it to one side and try not to let it blight your life.

As people become more engaged in the "democracy" - or what passes for it in this country, and bother to read and find things out on the internet and as they discuss these topics on-line, maybe there will be more people who will be bothered and feel able to do something about it. Hence the protests against the status quo and exploitation of 99% by the 1%- even though the media are trying hard to discredit them.

 Small steps.....

What 'information' will people find via the internet?  I wonder how many people found 'information' and 'reasoned discussion' about Barack Obama not having been born in America (and believed it), where a highly vocal and organised minority forced Obama to release his birth certificate.

Unfortunately most people don't have the time to wade through all the propaganda (on both sides) to find the real truth.  This is especially true when the propagandists know what makes people tick and how to whip people up into a frenzy.

How many people think the whole Human Rights Act business is to do with the European Union or the European Commission (and will happily tell others this 'information')?  I certainly did right up until somebody told me what the situation really was (and then I looked it up to double check) - it has NOTHING to do with EU/EC. It's all down to the  totally separate 47 country Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 26, 2011, 07:38:34 PM
More fallacious and contradictory logic from The Gorgon....

Quote
What 'information' will people find via the internet?  I wonder how many people found 'information' and 'reasoned discussion' about Barack Obama not having been born in America (and believed it), where a highly vocal and organised minority forced Obama to release his birth certificate.


 :wink: What, the poor idiot proles mislead by 'the evil internet' eh?

Well, for starters, the internet is not a cartel run by the same media which you cited earlier as 'whipping people into a frenzy'. (Would that be the same media which is far more open to abuse by 'propagandists', by the way?) People in the 21st century have FAR MORE access to information than ever before - which is why they are more likely to make educated decisions on who and what to believe.

Quote
What 'information' will people find via the internet?


 ::) - so information on the internet is not to be trusted? Oh, but...

Quote
How many people think the whole Human Rights Act business is to do with the European Union or the European Commission (and will happily tell others this 'information')?  I certainly did right up until somebody told me what the situation really was (and then I looked it up to double check)


... except when The Gorgon looks it up, of course.

  :wink:

The point that Alex made very well is that with the advent of the internet, politicians can't rely on a tame media peddling a particular line to stifle the truth. In terms of he reality of the EU, sure there are crank assumptions and claims - but what ought to frighten the most strident pro EU propagandist are the simple facts.

Eg. How many years has this organisation failed to have its own accounts signed off?

Here's just one simple example of freely available information found on the internet and, importantly, which we can check upon in a historical context from old media articles - the level of organised and systemic fraud regarding the humble olive, thanks to the EU (note, this was first being reported on as far back as 1993 - and yet its STILL an issue):

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/news/wr-29872_1_european-community (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-31/news/wr-29872_1_european-community)
http://www.economist.com/node/680051 (http://www.economist.com/node/680051)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1412372/Financial-watchdog-discloses-EU-fraud-and-error.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1412372/Financial-watchdog-discloses-EU-fraud-and-error.html)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: the gorgon on October 26, 2011, 08:38:20 PM
So what side of the debate are you on then I wonder Tobes?

In reality I'm neither avidly pro nor avidly anti European (when I talked about propaganda I said ON BOTH SIDES) - middle of the road you could say.  There's plenty wrong with the EU, plenty, failure to audit their accounts is just one of them. If you think I'm bad with my 'evil internet'  ;D ramblings that's nothing compared to the 'evil europe' ramblings of some anti-europeans (oddly I've not really encountered any pro-europe zealots).

You see when it comes to politics and related issue I've always been a had a tendency to be a bit of a piggy in the middle (or floating voter) it means I'm used to getting grief off both sides of a debate (sometimes the only thing the opposing sides can agree on is that I'm a pain :) ). 

Back to the 'evil internet' the problem with finding information on the internet is that it can take a lot of sifting, especially trying to find out what is fact and what is opinion (too many publications blur the line between the two far too much).  The biggest danger being that you gravitate towards the information that suits your own views (I'm as guilty as anyone of this) so your views are hardened rather than broadened.

Oh yeah, when I said I looked up about the Human Rights Act did I say where? Could have been the Library for all you know (it wasn't it was the 'evil internet').  :D
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Simon on October 26, 2011, 09:42:44 PM
Quote
How many people think the whole Human Rights Act business is to do with the European Union or the European Commission (and will happily tell others this 'information')?  I certainly did right up until somebody told me what the situation really was (and then I looked it up to double check)

... except when The Gorgon looks it up, of course.

If you could publish the links you found then that would be most helpful at this point, Gorgon.

Back to the 'evil internet' the problem with finding information on the internet is that it can take a lot of sifting, especially trying to find out what is fact and what is opinion (too many publications blur the line between the two far too much).  The biggest danger being that you gravitate towards the information that suits your own views (I'm as guilty as anyone of this) so your views are hardened rather than broadened.

Yep, there's definitely a distinction between fact and opinion as published on the interwebs, but I'd like to think that Tobes, the Gorgon and I are all smart enough to distinguish between fact and opinion?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: the gorgon on October 26, 2011, 10:31:55 PM
Simon - I'm not sure that I can be trusted  :wink:

I've managed to dig up some of the links I used to find about about the human rights act and council of europe...
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/Introduction/Information+documents/ (http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/Introduction/Information+documents/) Even says in one leaflet that it shouldn't be confused with the EU court of justice
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm)

http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe-portal (http://www.coe.int/lportal/web/coe-portal) Just seen here that the UK is about to take chairmanship of the council of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/4816408.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/4816408.stm)

Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 27, 2011, 01:27:06 AM
Quote
So what side of the debate are you on then I wonder Tobes?

I share the same position as you claim - which is why I think a referendum is long overdue  :wink:

I love Europe. But I'm opposed to the increasing federalisation of Europe. I'm all for free trade - but utterly opposed to central micro-management and the utter corruption of the eu polticial system.

I think your use of the word 'side' again illustrates why I'm getting frustrated with debate on TS - its suggests a simple partisanship once again, 'for or against'. My views and those of probably 95% of people who have an issue or concern over the EU don't follow the rantings of far right EU opponents either.

Lets give the people who pay their taxes and fund the damn thing a direct say for a change.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 27, 2011, 07:41:25 PM
http://europa.eu/index_en.htm (http://europa.eu/index_en.htm)

Found this on the Interweb. Bit of a paradox, you have to step into it to get an idea of the scale, and simultaneously step back to wonder how the flip we got dragged into that bureaucratic behemoth.

It is gargantuan and has never, ever deliverd a net financial benefit to the United Kingdom. All of the numbers I can find crunched describe us as a net contributor. I will have to have the benefits explained to me slowly and in words of one syllable.

Unless the question was rhetorical the EU accounts have not been signed off for 16 years in succession. Which is ironic cos they've got loads of legislation determining what conditions other organisations should meet when they are audited.

It does affect the bits and bobs of the shopping basket, a portion will go to French peasant farmers who make cheese in pissoirs and olive tree farms in the Arctic Circle and ski resorts in the Med (That last one is true, Sardinia I think)

A concern that is popping up now is that those who have coughed to cover Greece and are shovelling wedge into the bail out fund will become an inner EU circle, there's 17 of them. Then there are the outsiders whose presses are already at full chat and so did not donate. That would be us and we are part of a minority. If we are really lucky we could have the worst of both worlds. We get to enjoy EU legislation, we get to donate and we get to be in the minority who gets outvoted. The first prospect being mooted is that there financial transaction tax getting waved through.

Our present position is untenable. If we are in then we appear to be surplus one layer of government, if we are out we'd soon find out whether we are as good as we think we are.

Pretty shameful antics in the Mother of all Parliaments all things considered.


Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Simon on October 27, 2011, 09:47:36 PM
The first prospect being mooted is that there financial transaction tax getting waved through.


Are you referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax) ?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 28, 2011, 12:52:58 PM
That's the puppy.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 28, 2011, 06:40:29 PM
Goody goody gumdrops.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15490890 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15490890)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487674 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15487674)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15489202 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15489202)

http://www.johnkay.com/2011/10/26/europes-elite-is-fighting-reality-and-will-lose (http://www.johnkay.com/2011/10/26/europes-elite-is-fighting-reality-and-will-lose)

Why there is not a disorderly queue hurtling towards the exit I really don't know. I think the first out will be the most successful, eventually the EU is likely to consist of Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey who failed to get the memo. Germany will be busily trundling round Europe in Panzers repossessing their assets.

I'm bit of a thicky but the way I understand it Germany and France are paying some other countries some money so that those countries can pay France and Germany back the money they have borrowed. In the case of Italy at an unsustainable 6.06%. Where France and Germany cannot lend those countries enough to ensure France and Germany are paid back the EU will drum it up directly from places like China, and lend it on, or borrow it very indirectly (where it is politically expedient to obscure the movements of large wheelbarrows of freshly printed wonga) which is I believe the category we fall into whatever that nice Mr Osbourne says.

Will Cameron, or Milliband, continue wibbling on about constant battles with EU legislation and how it is sensible to keep spending £43m per day to support something that is hellbent on making our ability to pay that £43m increasingly difficult?

Bit like paying for burglars equipment so they can break into your house isn't it?

Also has the faint whiff of the insane economical antics that gave us global recession in the first place.

Given the opportunity I think I'd decline the opportunity to continue our membership of this asylum in it's present form.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Tobes on October 29, 2011, 12:05:41 AM
According to the news this morning (Radio 4) - our tax money, used to bail out Greece, is going into an economy where, far example, the state railway service earns 400,000,000 euros but COSTS the state 4000,000.000 euros!!! THE AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY OF A GREEK RAILWAY EMPLOYEE IS 65,000 EUROS!!! This is just another example of the endemic corruption and inefficiency that we're propping up. And on the drive home, I then hear that Spanish unemployment is now at 21% - with close on to 50% for the under 25s... and (cooincidence?) that they also receive some of the most generous unemployment benefits in the world...

Its over - an experiment which has proven that cultural differences are incompatible with a once-size-fits all economic system.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Mart on October 29, 2011, 01:01:53 PM
I've posted it before, but it becomes increasingly incredible.

According to information of the “Hellenic Defence & Technology” magazine, the U.S. authorities approved to grant 400 M1A1 Abrams tanks to the Greek Army, which will include options between simple refurbishment – worth tens of millions dollars for all the tanks- and upgrading to a higher level of operational capability, with a higher corresponding cost. The relative Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) is expected soon.

Also according to exclusive information of the” Hellenic Defence & Technology” magazine, a Price and Availability letter was sent to U.S. authorities regarding 20 AAV7A1 and a low cost upgrade program for them. This is the first step to cover an operational requirement for 75-100 vehicles.

Additional exclusive details on these requirements as well as for Bradley IFVs, in a forthcoming issue of the “Hellenic Defence & Technology” magazine.


We've currently got 386.

The only long term military threat to Greece is Turkey.

Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have called for Turkey to have a "privileged partnership" with the EU instead of full EU membership.

Mr Fuele defended the level of EU financial support for Turkey, arguing that fulfilling the EU "acquis" - the numerous standards and laws enforced across the EU - was "not a cheap exercise".

EU financial assistance for Turkey totalled 654m euros (£544m; $851m) in 2010. It will rise to 782m euros in 2011 and 900m in 2012, the European Commission says.


No, still struggling to see the benefits of membership. Mr Buckland would have to explain his reasoning for me to get 'onside' with him. Hopefully it will extend further than 'I was frightened by Mr Whippy'.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Bassettina on October 29, 2011, 02:12:29 PM
Quote
The trombonist's lot is not always a happy one. He needs a lot of puff, he often gets outshone by the more glamorous man on the saxophone, and it's a hard instrument to carry on a crowded train. But there are perks – in Greece, playing the instrument is deemed "arduous and unhealthy" and means players can retire at 50.

...

Trombonists are among a select group of professionals that includes bakers, hairdressers and masseurs, who are allowed to retire early because of the nature of their work. And some of the striking civil servants yesterday leapt to defend the system. "What if these people have been working from their teenage years?" said Yanna Venieri.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-to-call-time-on-cushy-pension-deals-for-unhealthy-jobs-1978789.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-to-call-time-on-cushy-pension-deals-for-unhealthy-jobs-1978789.html)
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote On Legal Aid For Most Vulnerable?
Post by: Got Signal on November 01, 2011, 08:42:44 AM
Does anyone know if the two Swindon MPs spoke on legal aid for the most vulnerable last night? How did they vote?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Steve Wakefield on November 01, 2011, 09:22:14 AM
I think Robert did speak on the subject and voted with the government. Though I will wait for they work for you email to confirm it.
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Terry Reynolds on November 01, 2011, 09:29:12 AM
I read in the paper this morning, that the Greek gov has now put all the measures put forward by the EU to sort out the country, to a vote for either yes or no, in view of the free train rides retirement age etc, cant see them voting for the measures and China has said it cant help with the bail out in financial terms, so where does that leave the EU now...
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Got Signal on November 01, 2011, 09:36:40 AM
OK how did Justin Tomlinson vote and did he speak?
Title: Re: How Did Swindon's Two Conservative MPs Vote?
Post by: Steve Wakefield on November 01, 2011, 09:57:21 AM
I only follow Robert Buckland MP on they work for you its a good service from the people who run it I suggest you subscribe to it as it is free.