Lord Duckhunter

You can reduce the gap between rich and poor by lowering the wealth of the rich and leaving the poor as poor. Personally I couldn't care less about how rich people are ( provided they've acted legally) or what the gap is, its irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the wealth of the bottom 20%.

I'm not conflating anything . The Establishment wants FPTP votes. The Establishment think we're "better together" . If the sweatys send enough SNP MPs to Westminster and they hold the balance of power because of FPTP, that's as legitimate as any other coalition . Unionists seem to want to pick and mix parts of the union .

Speaking as someone who wanted and still wants the Sweatys to sling their hooks ( and that daft welsh bird can go as well) I find the whole SNP in government scare stories laughable. The establishment wanted them in , we were " better together " . If you believe in the union , then you must believe in the Sweatys right to influence , mould and even run that Union . It's incoherent to claim otherwise . The establishment support FPTP, the establishment think we are " better together" , but when their voting system produces influence from people they campaigned to be part of our country look like forming part of the government , it's dangerous . **** sake who are these clowns ?

Its not a view, you can argue over a view. It is a fact. We did not have a vote on any form of PR

It isn't a form of pr , let alone the " exact one" I want.

Was it before or after the AV vote?

Must of. When was the referendum on pr

Its nothing to do with tighter scrutiny , its to do with FPTP. You know the system the lib/dumbs pledged to get rid for PR until they got seduced by Tory offers of minister's salaries and limos .

I completely and utterly agree with this. All the time its them whinging on about their lives. I'm not interested , stand for election , otherwise stfu and let me listen to people who are.

Adam Boulton claims that he spoke to 3 of the questioners last night and 2 said they felt the audience was not representative and one claimed she was never even asked what her politics were. Interesting that it was not the normal QT people that the BBC use, but another company . Listening to the Spectator podcast this morning Hardman claimed that it was representative , but that lefties " clap louder" . She also said every politician says privately that the studio audience doesn't matter, but only Nigel would say so in front of them. You're right, it will not have hurt Farage in the slightest. The audience whether balanced or not presented him with an opportunity and he took it. Interesting that Portillio , who is no fan of Nigel said on " This Week" that Nigel was the only participant living in the real world. Ed got shifted to the left and the others just wanted to spend spend spend spend.

Ed did well , the audience were clearly biased towards the leftie women so it could have been a tough night for him. He looked serious and professional, Tory people have clearly under estimated him. I thought the 3 chicks overplayed their hand & Nigel was Nigel. My verdict ; Ed won, Nigel will have played well with the 20% he wants. Sturgeon , not as good as last time , but OK. Taffy bird, shocking. Greens need a new leader, Lucas is head and shoulders above Bennett.

Cause he hasn't, he doesn't give a flying **** about the audience . He's after 20% of the people watching at home. The debate was moved onto his territory, housing debate became immigration debate. Whether you like it or not immigration plays well with a lot of voters. By the way. How on earth can anyone not see that allowing 200k people a year to come in effects housing. What do they live in?

Talking of jokes, Bennett is a ****ing clown.

I've got my bingo card ready for tonight's debate. Even watching the build up I've managed to tick off " progressive", "hard working families" " anti austerity agenda" and that's just the 3 wise monkeys commenting on the Greens, The Taffs & The Jocks. Looking forward to Nigel upsetting all the lefties tonight, hope he's had a couple of noggins beforehand & puts in the type of performance he did in the Euro debates with Cleggy.

If I was elected I would ban food banks. Then I could campaign at the next election saying I had eradicated poverty in this country.

Typical leftie , do as I say not as I do.

Pony . The pledge didn't say they would lower or abolish fees . Had it said that then they could be justified in claiming that because of coalition they could not deliver it, the Tory IHT cut couldn't be delivered , neither could boundary changes . What they did was entirely different and you've fallen for their lies over their lie. They pledged to vote against something, and then did the complete opposite . Had fees remained the same they would not have broken their pledge because their pledge was to vote against a rise . Their tuition fee policy could not be delivered because of coalition , but their pledge wasn't to bring in their policy . It was to vote against a rise & pressure the government , surely you can see the difference

They signed a pledge saying " I pledge to vote against any increase in fees" That's not failing to get a policy through, the pledge was never to abolish them or reduce them , it was very specific . To vote against an increase. Whether you are in Government or not is irrelevant ,they could have left them as they were and admitted failure in trying to " pressure the Government " ( which was the second part of the pledge). They did not do so. They are even lying about the lie . Their policy may have been to reduce them, but their pledge was to vote against any increase. Do you understand the difference ? 3 things could have happened to fees under the coalition . They could have gone down,stayed the same or gone up. 2 of those options would have meant sticking to their pledge, regardless of what their policy was.

Previously they've always taken the principled stand not to vote on English matters, but Sturgeons made it pretty clear they will this time.

They have a very strange definition of reducing the deficit as well . Mind you so do the other two establishment parties as well. They all " reduce" it as a % of GDP rather than as a cash amount . In effect they are relying on growth to " shrink" the deficit, but won't admit it. I'm thinking of trying it with Mrs Duck to stop her moaning about the amount I spend down the pub. 5 years ago I spent about £200 quid a month on ale, now I spend about £220. However I've had a few pay rises since, so I'm actually spending a smaller % of our household income on drink. Now anybody can see that my drinks bill has gone up £20 and if I tried to claim that I was spending less, everybody would call me a liar. Yet politicians keep telling this lie and everybody seems to just accept it. Frasier Nelson pointed out in the Spectator that had a company advertised its goods is such a misleading way they'd be prosecuted .

Inheritance tax threshold has been frozen for a number of years dragging more and more people into it. When labour left office the richest 2.6%of estates paid it . If its not reformed it is estimated by the obr that 11.6% of estates will be liable by 2019. If Labour think its morally right that the richest 11% of estates attract IHT, why did they leave the rate it kicks in at such a high level? Under labour a lot of these rich barstards got away without paying any death duty.

Years ago the tour used to allow you to drink an hour for free after the tour. Hall and woodhouse is a strange company nowadays . They're really big into their seasonal ales , therefore a lot of pubs have knocked tanglefoot on the head .Tanglefoot was their classic ale , strong but a session beer taste, but at least half of their pubs in the Poole area don't stock it now . They also don't allow their beers to be sold anywhere else either , whereas previously they allowed Freehouses & golf clubs ect to stock them . I always used to look for a Hall & Woodhouse pub , but there's so many alternatives nowadays unless they're serving Tanglefoot I won't go in ( their first Call , which Is rebranded Badger Best is shocking) .

As I've posted before ,this is exactly what Tax Credits and a minimum wage does to the people at the bottom. Notice the line " most pay more than the minimum wage" . They pay pennies above and that's their benchmark, they are not considered exploitative because they pay" above the minimum wage" . With no minimum wage their benchmark would be the minimum needed to retain staff. When I worked in retail management wages were pretty poor for the workers, however good blokes negotiated higher pay , and if we had problems filling vacancies we put the wage up to attract people. Now there's no need to as Tax credits top the wages up and other retailers pay more or less the same. Without tax credits they wouldn't be able to fill their vacancies until the wages were up to a certain level. If you're going to have a minimum wage it needs to be at a level where people don't need benefits to top it up. At the moment its a welfare to work vanity project designed to make politicians feel good about themselves. While tax credits are just a boost for companies profit.

No , because since the inception of the minimum wage everything has become regimented . When I first managed people, you had total discretion on what you paid ( within certain boundaries ) , now it's all benchmarked against the minimum wage . There's also been a notable drop off in ambition , brought about by tax credits . Blokes actually turn down overtime or even promotion because it'll effect their " benefits" . How on earth is that right? I don't blame them , I blame the politicians who allow it . How does it help peoples worth or self respect that we subsidise their employers to pay them and then call them scrounges or deadbeats

Dude, one thing I do know about ( and there's not much ) is retail management as it was in it for a number of years . It's about engaging people and empowering them , you don't keep hard workers in a box doing the same thing over and over . I've had lots of uneducated people who , whilst not necessarily becoming managers , ran areas and small teams for me . Even putting someone " in charge " of the a small part of the business , maybe the fridge by the exit with the sandwiches & bottles of drink in , makes the feel valued . I had a warehouse man who was a few sandwiches short of a picnic who still texts me and updates me on the job he's doing . A job that most on here would find mind numbingly boring , but by giving him a little responsibility and engaging him , he now has so much pride in what he does he texts his ex boss 7 years after he left .