Maggie Tate

There is nothing at all that local councillors can do about anything, which goes a long way to explain why the voters you describe as 'a fucking disgrace' don't bother to turn out.

That's quite an accusation to make towards the 80% ish of the English electorate who won't have bothered. It is very important for the health of democracy that the system allows not voting to be as powerful as voting. This is especially the case when, as was the case up until the last year of mental Miliband's time at the controls, the parties have been identical since about 1992. Whoever your local councillor is makes cock all difference to the vast majority of us, so no wonder no-one bothers to turn out. To treat the electorate with such disdain and contempt allows a rotten system off the hook.

That's quite an accusation to make towards the 80% ish of the English electorate who won't have bothered. It is very important for the health of democracy that the system allows not voting to be as powerful as voting. This is especially the case when, as was the case up until the last year of mental Miliband's time at the controls, the parties have been identical since about 1992. Whoever your local councillor is makes cock all difference to the vast majority of us, so no wonder no-one bothers to turn out. To treat the electorate with such disdain and contempt allows a rotten system off the hook.

McManus just came twice across the table in response to Ding's perfect length. Enjoying this match very much.

The massive ABV IPAs don't work for me either. That style suits stouts and your Belgian trappist sorts better. Mind you Thornbridge, alongside Buxton, are two of the very best UK breweries. Also Siren.

Who wouldn't? It is serfdom not to. What if the government decided next year to increase your tax rate to 96%? Still fine because you're lucky to be British? As long as we have no choice, the majority just have to pay our masters whatever our masters think is their due. Meanwhile, the more we see money pissed away on crap the more begrudging people become to pay it. The solution is not cutting off the choice to pay less but to spend public money wisely, sensibly and with due concern for the people who earned it. The solution is to justify to the public how the state spends its money, which means less incompetence, waste and corruption. They should be showing us why taking a substantial sum of ordinary people's earnings is morally just. The current situation is clearly that they couldn't give a fuck when they spend £9.3 million of Mike the plumber and Betty the dinner lady's money on biased leaflets for a campaign that hasn't even started yet, for instance. Have you forgotten the expenses scandal already?? They take your money and they laugh at you as they spend it. There is no point giving the government anything because they will piss it away. It's only sad that so many are on PAYE and can't keep more in their own pocket for putting over shop counters and bars where it will actually do the economy some good.

It's not just what they don't pay, it's what they cost in benefits, police overtime, court time, prison spaces, insurance premiums, housing costs, wasted NHS time and so on. At least the rich hiding their money doesn't cost anything, whereas the welfare lobby spends about a third of GDP.

For as long as politicians of the calibre of Diane Abbott are in receipt of taxpayers' money it's morally imperative not to pay any at all if you can avoid it.

For as long as politicians of the calibre of Diane Abbott are in receipt of taxpayers' money it's morally imperative not to pay any if you can avoid it.

Actually there may well be plenty to see if it can be demonstrated that Cameron has benefitted from his Dad's scheme. We'd probably have Prime Minister Johnson before the end of the summer.

Of course no industry can survive a heavily unionised workforce, especially not for as long as the extreme left dominates the unions. Sorry as I am for these people who are about, it seems, to lose their jobs, greater concern has to be for the taxpayer who, alternatively, will have to prop up a failing industry till the end of time. Or pay benefits to those who don't get other jobs. When Nissan came to Britain the first thing they did was insist on one union partly run by Nissan managers. What they got was the most effective car plant in Europe and what they did not get was a single industrial dispute. And the whole steel episode, apart from anything else, demonstrates the urgent need to repeal the Climate Change Act.

It's impossible. You might as well ask for the moon to be made into green cheese. For a 'moderate' Muslim to distance himself form the terrorists might be possible, but doing so he is open to thw accusation that he is not a true Muslim. That is enough to get him killed. Islam, at least for now, is a religion in which the extremists always have the advantage over the 'moderate' because the only way to follow it accurately is to follow all of it without questioning any of it. No space for modernity, no space for secularism, no space for anything except the most rigid possible interpretation. The argument over who is a true Muslim will be won by the extremist every time, becasue after all, the Koran, every word of which is to be believed by the true believer, contains warrant for pretty much everything ISIS gets up to. And it's not like there is a Pope-type to decide on everyone's behalf. Add to that that intellectually the Muslim world is centuries behind the UK and much of the west and you're asking the impossible. If it weren't for oil the whole Arab world, I read recently, would be less financially valuable than Nokia. So in short, there is no possible course of action 'moderates' could take to differentiate themselves.

Why is this vandal not in prison? He makes millions out of crime.

It doesn't take a right wing crank to think there is something odd about allegation after allegation about the man going unchallenged. Especially if you're familiar with the campaign of lies and smear he had launched about Lewinsky when those allegations came out. And every allegation turned out to be true. He did it all the time, over the course of years and years. Rape, fiddle, maul, assault, then on the rare occasions when victims came forward, invent lies about them and issue them and their families with threats. There is barely anyone whom he did not lie to. The fact millions and millions of Americans know this and find the Clinton name carries nasty associations is helping get Trump closer to the White House. Of course this is all before Hilary started taking top secret documents home on her personal laptop. This history has been written, includes the accusation that he is a rapist, and Clinton's side has not tried to correct it. One of the Hitchens brothers made half a career out of it. He was not, for the record, the right wing brother. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1999/05/christopher-hitchens-testifies-monica-lewinsky

Juanita Broadrrick. And he mauled with a number of others who had no reason at all to lie and whose allegations have never been refuted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

The impeachment, lies and financial scandal filth. And that he's a rapist. And the execution of Ricky Ray Rector and the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to distract from the cigar he shoved up Lewinsky. Awful man. Hillary lied for him time and time again and put him forever into her debt. That is not a good situation for a new President to be in. Sadly this all means VOTE TRUMP.

Labour elected Corbyn quite a long time before the Republicans picked Trump. It's the same anti-establishment phenomenon at work. This is a good point to make to anyone who thinks Americans are uniquely stupid. Personally, I would vote for Trump over either Clinton or Sanders, though I'd vote for almost any other Democrat or Republican over Trump. But you only get the choice you get and often you vote to keep someone out rather than get someone in. No-one should underestimate how many Americans would vote for Pol Pot before they voted for someone called Clinton, and nor do I blame them. The following letter appeared in the Financial Times recently and outlines the thing nicely: Sir, My wife and I are affluent Americans with postgraduate degrees. We are socially liberal and fiscally mildly conservative. We are not the sans-culottes you see as the prototypical Trump voter. We are well aware of his vulgarity and nous deficiency yet we contemplate voting for him. Why? Electing the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party seems purposeless. The neanderthal Republicans barely respected the legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s election, let alone that of Hillary who would arrive tainted with scandal and the email lapses hanging over her head. We would get four years of gridlock and “hearings”. The Republican tribunes, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, are backward, foolish and inexperienced. John Kasich, a moderate with extensive governmental experience and a willingness to compromise, is an also-ran. That leaves The Donald, really a moderate in wolf’s garb, who would owe nothing to either party and might strike deals, for instance on tax reform. Yes, we could be like the good citizens who voted for a “tameable” Hitler in 1933 to get things back on track. But the alternatives look worse. Jon and Elsa Sands Indianapolis, IN, US

It's interesting how the link contains all sorts of information you've ignored isn't it? Such as the 80-20 majority in favour of keeping it, the Native Americans who want to see it kept, and the fact that the name was created in 1933 as a tribute to the same people who white people have now decided it offends. I am yet to see the word nigger used a tribute, at least not by anyone except Snoop Doggy Dog. But despite all this it's good to see you've identified the 'only reason' it is not a bigger deal.

When did I say we would be safer out?

There is no way there will be any less of that once we've left. Have it your way but the refusal of many others to sign , including recent personalities like Generals Wall and Richards shows clearly that there is no groundswell of opinion in favour of staying amongst defence chiefs. They probably think as I do that it is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Oh? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-sir-michael-rose-eu-is-eroding-our-sovereignty-says-former-sas-commander-a6894606.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12172525/War-hero-felt-pressured-by-No.10-into-signing-pro-Europe-letter.html As good as. This connects with the EU how? Except the existence of Schengen allowing them to stream to more or less wherever they want of course.

General Rose - the best of the lot - has distanced himself from the letter and more or less declared himself an outer. So has Lord Bramhall, pretty much anyway. What the rest of them are on about it is hard to tell. The idea that defence will suffer outside the EU is bizarre. If ever there was an area where the EU countries need us more than we need them, it is defence, counter terrorism and the like. Inestimably more important is our relationship with the Americans and the five eyes arrangements. We are genuine world leaders here - let's not do ourselves down by thinking there is anything useful that we can't do without from Luxembourg. Or Sweden. Or even Germany. Or any of them. The EU is not NATO. The latter is actually useful. Corbyn of course, though he won't admit it, wants us out of both. He's only half right.

I'm not sure you really get it.

Or with Norway, Iceland or Switzerland. Odd that.

To keep it brief I'll mention three things. One, we're already half out as it is and moreso now with this deal, such as it is. The rest of the EU, or more specifically the Euro countries, will carry on regardless and apparently we now won't be part of the integration which is surely to come. Second, whatever benefits there are to being in are also available to us if we're out. I have not heard one In supporter give an example of one concrete, material thing which we get from being in which we wouldn't out. Not one. Third, think how this whole thing looked in 1975 when we were last asked to vote on it and how little what we have now resembles it. So if we get a referendum again in 41 years time, think if you want to be a member of that. Think if June's referendum was to join. There is so little to be scared of if we leave. In most sense we won't even notice. The greater risk is to remain and be a part of it if it all comes crashing down, which is something easily foreseeable from any number of sources, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Portugal, Syria amongst them. But we'll vote to stay, sadly, unless Boris grows a pair. Then it might be a lot closer.