Jump to content

League Express
Rugby League World


Member Since 21 Jul 2005
Offline Last Active Today, 05:23 PM

#3164733 Labour leadership contest

Posted by Derwent on 26 July 2015 - 08:16 AM

If you are poor with a view - Chippy, politics of envy.
If you are well off with a view - Champagne socialist.

Perhaps, but what exactly makes Charlotte Church a noteable political commentator ? Am I missing something as to why her view is important ?

#3164539 Ha ha Haven!

Posted by Derwent on 25 July 2015 - 06:48 PM

Fair play to Haven they've gone there with the right attitude and done the job. Let's hope our lads go with the same positive attitude tomorrow.

#3162626 Labour leadership contest

Posted by Derwent on 22 July 2015 - 05:51 PM

Isn't that what Left Unity claims to be doing? How come they haven't swept into power on this apparently huge wave of popular support that exists out there that the Labour Party isn't tapping into?
Maybe it isn't actually there and this country is, on the whole, not very left wing at all.

As I said earlier in this thread, the UK is conservative with a small c. Labour ignore that at their peril.

#3161295 Town v Broncos

Posted by Derwent on 20 July 2015 - 12:18 PM

Great effort kurt is proving me wrong


It was always just a matter of time before Kurt started to show what he can do. His 2 ex team mates in Oz are both getting praise at Halifax and Kurt was more highly regarded over there than they were. Its taken him time to acclimatise and get used to things over here but I think he will prove to be a very valuable acquisition from now on.

#3160823 Labour leadership contest

Posted by Derwent on 19 July 2015 - 06:53 PM

True Tories will always vote that way, just as Labour hardcore will always vote that way. But the thing that decides elections is the whole swathe of the population in the middle who are conservative with a small c.

I hear Labour politicians harping on about the "working man" as if we are still in 1975 and the large industrial base still existed. Where the "working man" had little aspiration other than to feed his family and get by week to week.

The "working man" these days is just as likely to go to work in a tie, drive a BMW and live in a nice house on a suburban estate, want his kids to go to university, have a foreign holiday every year etc.

Forget about appealing to core voters, it is these people who win elections. Blair got it, before he got his God complex. I'm not suggesting Labour should go back to the full on Blairite approach but if they don't incorporate aspects of it and understand why it's important then quite frankly they are doomed.

#3158808 Labour leadership contest

Posted by Derwent on 16 July 2015 - 06:34 AM

If Labour lurch hard left with Corbyn then they are finished. Truly. Have a look around Europe and see how other left of centre parties are doing. In the modern era left wing politics doesn't work with people's sense of genuine fairness, it rewards the wrong behaviours and fails those with aspiration.

#3158020 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 14 July 2015 - 11:27 AM

My own personal view is that we should have a multi-tier benefits system in place. I really think there is a genuine need to put people into different classifications of claimant.


I'd classify them as :-


1. Unemployed

2. Incapacitated/Disabled

3. Unemployable

4. Career Claimants


Unemployed - in this context I'd classify the unemployed as those people who have worked, want to work and for reasons not of their own making don't currently have a job to go to. People who would take a suitable job tomorrow given the opportunity. These people should receive a far higher benefits entitlement to that which they currently receive, based on a % of their average earnings over the last 3 years as an example.


Incapacitated/Disabled - based on medical evidence, if these people are deemed to be genuinely unfit to work, then they should receive a benefits package that affords them a decent standard of living to at least the same level as a full-time NMW worker.


Unemployable - those without any skills, qualifications or desire to work. These people should receive much lower benefits than the genuinely unemployed. Those in this category who wish to receive enhanced benefits could progress by doing some vocational training or adult education courses to make them more employable. Opportunities should be there for them, if they take them then they receive more money, if not then they don't.


Career Claimants - those who have never worked, have no desire to ever work and are content to let the state provide for them. These people should be on the bare minimum of benefits.


I've never quite understood why people in the "unemployed" category should be treated the same as those in the "career claimant" category. If people want to complain about the unfairness of the benefits system then how about starting with the inherent unfairness that exists within it, where a genuine jobseeker can be treated worse than a claimant who has no intention of working. A tiered system gives people choice and opportunity as to how they are treated by the system. You want to progress - great, we'll help you. You want to sit on your backside watching Jeremy Kyle - fine, but accept the consequences. Personal choices.

#3156916 8-12 Jul: The Kingstone Press Championship Match Thread

Posted by Derwent on 12 July 2015 - 04:08 PM

Fantastic win for Town in the Cumbrian derby, totally dominated Haven to win 28-6 at the Wreck.

#3156692 Renewable energy

Posted by Derwent on 12 July 2015 - 08:58 AM

A couple of points...

1. Not all wind farm subsidies are being ended. It only affects onshore wind farms. Subsidies will still be available for offshore projects.

2. The current level of subsidy is unsustainable unless you wish to see even higher energy bills for consumers.

3. Most of the subsidies are going to non-domestic companies like Dong Energy who have no UK based subsidiary and don't pay any taxes here. Also, companies such as B2 Energy are exploiting our generous research grant system - they registered a UK business and got many millions in grants then scarpered back to Holland to build their prototypes using Dutch workers but paid by UK taxpayers money.

#3156365 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 11 July 2015 - 08:54 AM

Good to see some people are fighting back and putting human rights law to good use as well: Families of disabled kids 'pushed into poverty' because they're 'TOO ILL' celebrate after beating heartless Tories in court

That article is bizarre in the sense that it is apparently a victory over heartless Tories, yet itself states that the rule has been in place for the last 20 years. I'm pretty sure that these "heartless Tories" weren't in power for most of those 20 years. Or is it only a heartless rule when there's a Tory government ? What was it when it was in place under a Labour government from 1997 to 2010 ?

#3156027 Winding-up petition lodged against Salford

Posted by Derwent on 10 July 2015 - 05:35 PM

Old news - can be contested/counterclaimed/paid - I would guess the latter

Not really the point though is it ? It all smacks of a very unprofessional set up at the club when coupled with the recent CCJ's. Despite what Koukash said at his circus, the CCJ's from April & May still haven't been paid. Oh and guess what, a further 2 CCJ's have been registered since then. That is a total of 7 outstanding now.

#3156008 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 10 July 2015 - 04:51 PM

The Telegraph calculator is flawed in its methodology. In terms of wages it is only calculating the difference in tax on the same salary in two different years. Anyone on NMW now working 37.5 hours gets a salary of £12,675 where as when the new rate starts they'd be getting £14,040 - an increase of £1,365. The Telegraph calculator doesn't take that increased wage into account, it assumes a static wage.

Furthermore, those who work but have children of pre-school age will be better off due to the additional 15 hours of free childcare each week that they will receive. I'm not sure what childcare costs per hour these days but I'd think those 15 hours have a significant value.

#3155753 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 10 July 2015 - 10:05 AM

Semantic nonsense. If families had previously been entitled to CTC for more than 2 children and that has now been restricted to the first 2 children then that is a cut. It will take money away from families previously entitled and be kept in the treasury. Otherwise why are they doing it? So much for the Tories being the party of the family!

Absolute garbage. Families with more than 2 children Currently will continue to receive tax credits for them.

The only people affected are those who have a 3rd child after April 2017. So how are they "entitled" to something that doesn't yet exist ? If people choose to have children after that date then they do so fully aware of the implications.

#3155733 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 10 July 2015 - 09:42 AM

Child tax credit has not been cut. The eligibility criteria has changed, which is a different thing altogether. Those who currently receive CTC for more than 2 children will continue to do so. The restriction to 2 children only applies to new claimants.

#3155654 £12bn in welfare cuts

Posted by Derwent on 10 July 2015 - 06:34 AM

We can hardly be expected to take account of your lack of knowledge when posting can we? Maybe you should read a little more and you might be a little more learned and a lot less ignorant and reactionary.

And be as learned as you ? So learned that your brand of politics is completely out of touch with modern life and rejected by anyone of sound mind. Tell me, how many votes did your Left Unity party get in the general election ? The grand total of 455 I believe. You keep the red flag flying mate, you're doing a great job.