Is Mr Miliband's "bribe" to business owners illegal ?

Pay me to vote

If they offered me hard cash for my vote that might count as bribery? But would it if I accepted cash off all of them and then didn't vote?! 

They all offer what they think voters want to hear. And they all fail to deliver. It's politics. No different really to a firm of accountants claiming to be friendly, approachable and better than all the rest.....

I'm more worried about ...

... moving the voting age to 16 and building an additional 200,000 houses a year.

Personally I would prefer voting age up to 21 (conditional on being a tax payer if under retirement age) and reducing the population by 800,000 per year (assuming an average of 4 to a house).

Not to mention supporting HS2, as if that is going to take business away from the south, it will just widen the commuter belt and push the house prices up even further out of the reach of the indigenous populations- plus £121million per mile to build, that is a lot that could be better spent elsewhere!

Just about says it all ...

and what about the broken promises put forward in either electioneering or manifestos

Interesting background facts on Harriet Harman ...

In the late 1970's Ms Harman was the legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) - currently known as Liberty.

When Ms Harman joined this organisation the NCCL and PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange), had already been affiliated for 3 years - to find out more on this organisation Google it

However - Just to recap on the NCCL submission to Parliament at the time:

'.. Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage ..'

Yup - you did read that correctly! - Under PIE’s influence the NCCL campaigned for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit child [***] should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm

Oh! and by the way Jack Dromey - later Ms Harman's husband was also involved with NCCL along with Patricia Hewitt (General Secretary) - later Labour Party Heath Secretary, also implicated in the Expenses Scandal and the Cash For Influence Scandal

So there we have it - illegality and moral rectitude are totally different animals which in any event are rendered void be being a politician

The odd little bribe would seem to be fairly benign really!
 

Are you sure that's right?

As Frankie says, "Relax".

Turn on the radio (though it may need some new Panasonic batteries) and take a couple of chill pills (Tic Tacs work)

Agreed, Shirley

We shoud concentrate on the now and future. Muck-raking for issues that happened 35 years ago (particularly when involving the misguided and naive actions of a pre-politics youngster) should be the preserve of the gutter press and has no place in a professional forum. I find those "interesting" background facts distinctly uninteresting.

Ignoring uncomfortable issues ..

With the strapline ‘..I find those "interesting" background facts distinctly uninteresting ..’

@BKD

Of course it is entirely the individuals prerogative to choose to ignore history because it raises uncomfortable issues. Although, it is worth remembering that history does have a bearing on the present and future - without it we would not be where we are today; and neither would those involved at the time

One would assume this ostrich 'distancing' stance is applied to all historical areas across the board and ‘cherry picking’ does not exist?

In which case anyone who did anything questionable in the past will undoubtedly have a ‘free pass’ in the future – especially as no definition of history has been suggested; is it yesterday, 5/10/20 years ago or 35+ years and how does the passage of time dull any potential seriousness

Also it would be good to know how one regards the concept of morality and the distinction between right and wrong in this area, alternative are they irrelevant in your opinion; or perhaps today these matters are regarded as the norm for 35 years ago?

Nevertheless, with the latest round of historical child abuse issues, clearly the courts and public at large do not feel quite so sanguine over these matters

I don't disagree, FS

I suppose my point was that the post in question, interesting or otherwise, has little to do with this blog thread. Seems to me that it, together with the post that preceded it, was nothing more than a misplaced dig at Labour politicians.

I guess it's just the price that we have to pay for having a subsciption-free forum.

Double standards ...

@ShirleyM

Try reading this -

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3879192.ece

'.. Hypocrisy can be a beautiful thing when done well. To go, as Ed Miliband has done, within four years, from being the minister insisting that energy prices must rise — so uncompetitive green energy producers can be enticed to supply power — to being the opposition leader calling for energy prices to be frozen is a breathtaking double axel that would make Torvill and Dean envious ..'

'.. Remember this is the very architect of our current energy policy, the man who steered the suicidally expensive Climate Change Act through Parliament; the man who even this week pledged to decarbonise the entire British economy (not just the electricity sector) by 2030, meaning that nobody will be permitted to heat their house with gas ..'

... and he is regarded as fit for purpose ?

Always an excuse ...

@ShirleyM

Endless litany of excuses

Not my faultWasn't meEveryone else does itand so on ........

Simply face up to the facts

If the facts are incorrect then provide evidence to refute them otherwise just acknowledge the position and move on

Fighting a rear-guard action on questionnable ground is always unwise - especially when the evidence is against one. Furthermroe, refusing to acknowledge the obvious, by various smoke/mirror tactics, really doesn't do much for ones credibility
 

Mutual admiration society ...

going on here - no doubt swapping 'thanks' on each others posts

Clearly whenever the facts get tough the simplest way of avoiding the issue is to drop into vacuous comments

If you don't like an opinion or a factual article from a newspaper, then put up a reasoned argument to challenge it
 

Seems like ...

... someone is chasing (hidden) shadows.

What I find scary ...

... is that Ed "Finknottle" Milliband makes a statement about something he "plans" to do IF he gets in to power in what may be 2 years time, and he is in power in his own right and not in a coalition, AND the energy company's in question see their share value drop £2b!

Why don't we ...

... put all the politicians in a "The Truman Show" scenario and get on with our lives in peace?

Do others not care …

Apropos earlier comments ‘I did’ in reply to ‘Always an excuse’. The ‘reasoned’ argument is that because everyone else does it – it’s OK - no it is not!. Try that one in a court of law and see how far it gets

Nothing about right and wrong, setting an example or the high moral ground being taken over later comments on ‘socialism and caring’. Seems like double standards to make a point at the time!

‘..Socialists are not socialists because of envy. It's because we care about everyone, especially those less fortunate than ourselves ..’ - There is a certain arrogance to believe that socialists have the monopoly on caring – with the implication that others do not. Why is this the case?

Of course the following article will generate all sorts of disparaging remarks about the newspaper involved, but are these a predictable smoke screen to muddy the waters by trying to discredit the content (shoot the messenger) by innuendo rather than fact?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/GEOFFREY-LEVY-SATURDAY-E...

Quote - ‘..Like all Left-wing thinkers, Ralph Miliband knew how to explain away awkward events ..’

It would seem as though perhaps the wrong Milliband is in office. In fact having the wrong one in office is a great dis-service to the country because as you rightly say '.. Only die-hard life-long labour supporters will vote for him ..'. Realistically we need a strong opposition to challenge the government of the day

It worries me ...

... that anyone should attempt to give credence to the words of Mr Levy.

'nuff said, I think.

That's sorted Shirley's ...

... Christmas present - off to Waterstones to get her a dictionary.