newjez Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Parley said: I don't believe any of the lie deliberately. They may have to change their mind later about a policy but that isn't a lie. Well, for example, the funding per pupil is falling, but the overall funding is rising. Both are true, but the second truth is used to hide the first truth. You can bend the numbers to suite your needs, and not lie, but they are being dishonest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 33 minutes ago, ScottieGirl said: Ideologically I agree with you but in practice I prefer May over Gove or Johnson. God yes. I wouldn't touch Gove to wipe dog poo off my feet. Give is the reason me eleven year old is learning all about subjective clauses and all sorts of pointless rubbish, and my eldest had an oral English exam which doesn't count for anything. Who cares about the fine points of grammar, but presenting skills are priceless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benj1980 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 I have no faith in Corbyn to negotiate a good deal for the UK, I think May will be better equipped to do this. I really like pretty much every Labour pledge in their manifesto but I don't know how they would fund it. Saying corporations will pay, as well as higher tax earners isn't any stonewall guarantee as corporations in particular find loopholes. The UK does not need further debt and I can't see how under labour this will decrease. There's an awful lot of 'power to the people' posts on my Facebook at the moment and there seems to be a momentum shift, although I suspect the majority of my friends are just keeping their thoughts to themselves instead of calling Tory voters murderers, pro child starvation or the like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 The thing that has surprised me is the appalling bad way they presented the manifesto. They have been hammered by the press for the social care changes, but this should have been a major win policy, but they presented is so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 3 hours ago, benj1980 said: I have no faith in Corbyn to negotiate a good deal for the UK, I think May will be better equipped to do this. I really like pretty much every Labour pledge in their manifesto but I don't know how they would fund it. Saying corporations will pay, as well as higher tax earners isn't any stonewall guarantee as corporations in particular find loopholes. The UK does not need further debt and I can't see how under labour this will decrease. There's an awful lot of 'power to the people' posts on my Facebook at the moment and there seems to be a momentum shift, although I suspect the majority of my friends are just keeping their thoughts to themselves instead of calling Tory voters murderers, pro child starvation or the like! Corbyn does have a lot of experience negotiating with terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 May is not comfortable in the public eye, Corby seem much more relaxed, as he should be, he's got nothing to lose, as to who will be the best PM, probably May for me, wouldn't be bad for our democracy if the Tories didn't have a huge majority though. ps, if you think Corbs will win, bet your house on him, you'll have eight houses by the end of next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collie Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Ok, so I have watched it back. Corbyn definitely the winner for me, he engaged with the crowd in the first section, actually answered the questions put to him. May waffled and did not answer the questions, she kicked the can down the road a few times, talking about green papers and consultation processes. On the Paxman piece, 1st Paxman was annoying as he didn't let them answer the questions and kept interrupting, more with Corbyn than May. Corbyn wasn't as strong in this section as the audience piece but his convictions came through and he didn't fall into Paxman's traps. May started badly, walked straight into the trap about u-turns and caving (& what the EU negotiators would read from that), she improved towards the end. Regarding who will negotiate a better deal, it doesn't really matter, the UK doesn't have a strong hand, they will take the deal that is offered. Corbyn is less likely to piss the Europeans off by making stupid threats that the EU don't care about. He is a social democrat and will have better rapport with Merkel and Macron. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collie Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Corbyn the winner with the audience too which was 1/3 tory, 1/3 Labour and 1/3 undecided. A lot of shaking of the heads with May's answers, 1 bloke even mouthed "that's bollocks" caught on camera to an answer. If the audience is a barometer, it could be a lot closer than people think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Collie said: Corbyn the winner with the audience too which was 1/3 tory, 1/3 Labour and 1/3 undecided. A lot of shaking of the heads with May's answers, 1 bloke even mouthed "that's bollocks" caught on camera to an answer. If the audience is a barometer, it could be a lot closer than people think. Get your bet on, the bookies are giving 7/1, put your house on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collie Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 I still think the tories will win but there won't be the landslide that she hoped for. If her majority is less than 50 she will be under pressure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 40 minutes ago, Collie said: I still think the tories will win but there won't be the landslide that she hoped for. If her majority is less than 50 she will be under pressure. I think that would be a good result for them, 5 years and an increased majority, if they get one that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoDemocracy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 4 hours ago, benj1980 said: I have no faith in Corbyn to negotiate a good deal for the UK, I think May will be better equipped to do this. I really like pretty much every Labour pledge in their manifesto but I don't know how they would fund it. Saying corporations will pay, as well as higher tax earners isn't any stonewall guarantee as corporations in particular find loopholes. The UK does not need further debt and I can't see how under labour this will decrease. There's an awful lot of 'power to the people' posts on my Facebook at the moment and there seems to be a momentum shift, although I suspect the majority of my friends are just keeping their thoughts to themselves instead of calling Tory voters murderers, pro child starvation or the like! If we don't borrow and spend on worthwhile infrastructure projects and 'real' training rather than mickey mouse university courses and provide funding for high tech research then the result will be a low wage economy slowly declining on the edge of Europe, in the last week my wifes commute took 1,5 hours instead of 45 mins due to a fault on a level crossing, there is still a 12 minute delay today because of the same fault, often she travels on 30 year old rolling stock bought 2nd hand by the rail contractor, I was in Derby looking for rentals to buy and was looking at late victorian 2 up, 2 down terraces on streets that were filthy, on my journey across there I was struck by how much of a main road connecting to one of the largest ports, Felixstowe, was 2 lanes and long stretches needed resurfacing, outside Cambridge they are creating new motorways and connections, they have been on it for a year already and it is due for completion in December 2020, so it will have taken 5 years for this project, obviously it is being stretched out so that expenditure falls across a number of financial years to reduce govt expenditure per year. Today I had the misfortune to have to go to London and travel from one side to the other on the underground, not only was it ultra expensive, it lacked air conditioning and is by and large unusable by anyone with a disability, so it's a joke with the Tories saying everybody has to work regardless of their incapacity Austerity and limiting public expenditure is simply limiting the ability of the country to function effectively and is now being counter-productive, big and little business borrows to modernise and expand but as soon as those same business people get into office they simply adopt a mantra of private borrowing OK, public borrowing bad, even when the cost of borrowing is effectively in minus territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 4 hours ago, Collie said: I still think the tories will win but there won't be the landslide that she hoped for. If her majority is less than 50 she will be under pressure. President Boris then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Just been reading that Diane Abott has received £115 k from BBC for appearance money is this true ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, Rallyman said: Just been reading that Diane Abott has received £115 k from BBC for appearance money is this true ? Where did you read it, that might be a clue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 45 minutes ago, akiralx said: Where did you read it, that might be a clue... It's on BBC web page also in a number of on line papers , BBC saying she should not have been paid since she was on front bench ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 25 minutes ago, Rallyman said: It's on BBC web page also in a number of on line papers , BBC saying she should not have been paid since she was on front bench ? I can't see it on the BBC News site - can you post a link. It would seem bizarre for the BBC to complain if they were the ones paying it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallyman Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Will do later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Probably more fake news. Seems to be a lot about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toots Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I saw something about it the Daily Mail so it could be fake news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collie Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 10 hours ago, BacktoDemocracy said: If we don't borrow and spend on worthwhile infrastructure projects and 'real' training rather than mickey mouse university courses and provide funding for high tech research then the result will be a low wage economy slowly declining on the edge of Europe, in the last week my wifes commute took 1,5 hours instead of 45 mins due to a fault on a level crossing, there is still a 12 minute delay today because of the same fault, often she travels on 30 year old rolling stock bought 2nd hand by the rail contractor, I was in Derby looking for rentals to buy and was looking at late victorian 2 up, 2 down terraces on streets that were filthy, on my journey across there I was struck by how much of a main road connecting to one of the largest ports, Felixstowe, was 2 lanes and long stretches needed resurfacing, outside Cambridge they are creating new motorways and connections, they have been on it for a year already and it is due for completion in December 2020, so it will have taken 5 years for this project, obviously it is being stretched out so that expenditure falls across a number of financial years to reduce govt expenditure per year. Today I had the misfortune to have to go to London and travel from one side to the other on the underground, not only was it ultra expensive, it lacked air conditioning and is by and large unusable by anyone with a disability, so it's a joke with the Tories saying everybody has to work regardless of their incapacity Austerity and limiting public expenditure is simply limiting the ability of the country to function effectively and is now being counter-productive, big and little business borrows to modernise and expand but as soon as those same business people get into office they simply adopt a mantra of private borrowing OK, public borrowing bad, even when the cost of borrowing is effectively in minus territory. Can't speak to the specifics in the UK but given were interest rates are at, money has never been cheaper, it is almost free for national governments. It is less than the rate of inflation so it actually saves you money. Governments should be borrowing now for large capital projects (not for current expenditure). E.G In Australia, they should be looking to develop the high speed rail, Sydney to Melbourne via Canberra & maybe 2-3 regional centres and then to Brisbane via Newcastle and 2-3 centres. Then you wouldn't need to build the 2nd airport at Badgerys creek. Capital projects also boost the economy and the governement gets a lot of the investment back in terms of VAT/GST, income taxes of the workers involved, corporation taxes from the contractors etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amibovered Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Quote Jeremy Corbyn can’t rewrite his reprehensible IRA history Quote This election campaign should have been a non-stop humiliation for the Labour party. Instead, we have witnessed an uncertain Theresa May make a mess of her campaign, while Jeremy Corbyn has proven to be a cannier politician than expected. There is so much mud to throw at him that he should have drowned in it long ago. Why has a supposedly “peaceful” man associated himself with so many extremists? Were his engagements in Iran and Gaza compatible with his apparent quest for world peace? It’s remarkable that a friend of Hamas, who took money to appear on the propagandistic TV channels of the Iranian regime and sympathises with every anti-Western cause, should not have been politically destroyed. His support for the IRA alone should have sunk Labour. In the 1980s, as the this ruthless mob murdered, kidnapped, assaulted and tortured people, Corbyn and his allies – including Diane Abbott and John McDonnell – supported the cause and befriended terrorists. The possibility that we might have a chancellor who once said: “it was the bombs and bullets… that brought Britain to the negotiating table”, or a home secretary who said that “every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us”, is madness; a sign of these unstable political times. Corbyn has proven capable of quite remarkable levels of cynicism and dishonesty, best exemplified by how he explains away his longstanding support of the IRA. This is so important because among so many unpleasant truths about the man, this sickening display skewers the Corbyn myth. When he lies about every single allegation regarding his IRA affiliations and sympathies, he is relying on public ignorance of the details. When he says “what I want everywhere is a peace process”, he knows he has an army of dogmatic devotees enraptured by his personality cult who will propagate the lies on social media. To the young he comes across as sincere and feeds their anti-establishment sentiment. His allies portray him as a “straight talking” decent man who is heralding an age of “honest, straightforward politics”. It’s a barefaced lie. He cannot be allowed to get away with this. A week after the Brighton bombing, Corbyn invited Gerry Adams to the Commons. Ireland’s Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said that, according to the evidence he has seen, Adams was not only an IRA member, but sat on its army council. Corbyn was later arrested while on a pro-IRA protest at the trial of the bomber who had killed five people and injured a further 31. He also wrote for and supported a socialist magazine which gloated about the bombing and threatened Margaret Thatcher with further attacks. Corbyn clearly supported the means as well as the end. The Labour leader was “happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland” at an event organised by Republican leaders in London’s Conway Hall during the 1987 general election. Corbyn has shamelessly lied that it was a meeting intended to honour victims on both sides. It wasn’t – it was to commemorate the Provos who had attempted to blow up a police station before being killed by the British Army. This meeting was held just months before an IRA bomb killed 11 people as they gathered around the cenotaph on Remembrance Day in Enniskillen. Still, he did not renounce his support. Even Labour sympathisers found it hard to stomach Corbyn’s infatuation with the IRA. A 1996 editorial in the left-leaning Guardian, of all places, denounces his “romantic support for Irish Republicans” and states unequivocally: “Mr Corbyn's actions do not advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland and are not seriously intended to do so”. People weren’t fooled at the time, in the same year that the provisional IRA – for which Corbyn was still making excuses – set off a bomb in Canary Wharf that killed two people, injured over 100, and caused £150m worth of damage. Corbyn is now attempting to rewrite history and portray himself as an integral part of the peace process, saying that his role was “supporting a process which would bring about a dialogue”. How strange then, that Corbyn opposed the Anglo-Irish agreement and lobbied the government on behalf of IRA prisoners. Stranger still, why did neither Corbyn nor McDonnell ever engage with the opposing side to their ideological kindred spirits in the IRA? For the truth, we need to listen to the real architects of the peace process who insist that these men had nothing at all to do with it. Former deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, Seamus Mallon, said “I never heard anyone mention Corbyn at all. He very clearly took the side of the IRA and that was incompatible, in my opinion, with working for peace.” Sean O’Callaghan, an ex-IRA terrorist, said Corbyn “played no part ever, at any time, in promoting peace in Northern Ireland”, and any suggestion otherwise is “a cowardly, self-serving lie”. Cowardly and self-serving: fitting words for Jeremy Corbyn, who has exposed himself as an unscrupulous liar with a warped moral compass. http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-corbyn-cant-rewrite-his-reprehensible-ira-history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gbye grey sky Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, amibovered said: http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-corbyn-cant-rewrite-his-reprehensible-ira-history This is a somewhat surreal topic for a 2017 election but indicates perhaps how desparate the far-right media is to discredit the man. Despite all attempts to rewrite history both the British and their Unionist allies also have a shameful history in Northern Ireland and to pretend that it was a simple good v evil battle may work well with fans of Marvel Comics and their feature film spin-offs but it was much more nuanced in reality. Irish Catholics had genuine grievances which for a long time were ignored. Few in Britain had the courage or moral fibre to stand up against the accepted 'wisdom' and British Government propaganda then and it is typical that those that did are still vilified - when essentially they turned out to be right, hence the Goid Friday agreement. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 1 hour ago, amibovered said: http://www.cityam.com/265655/jeremy-corbyn-cant-rewrite-his-reprehensible-ira-history We are facing a very real situation where sinn fein could be in government. Now that would be weird wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collie Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Has she blown it? May could lose majority in June 8 election - YouGov projection By Guy Faulconbridge and William Schomberg,Reuters 1 hour 19 minutes ago By Guy Faulconbridge and William Schomberg LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May could lose control of parliament in Britain's June 8 election, according to a projection by polling company YouGov, raising the prospect of political deadlock just as formal Brexit talks begin. In stark contrast to opinion polls that have until the past week shown May on course for a big win in the snap election she called, the YouGov model suggested May would lose 20 seats and her 17-seat working majority in the 650-seat British parliament. For an interactive graphic on the election click: http://tmsnrt.rs/2q7tC48 The YouGov constituency projection, based on 50,000 interviews over the course of a week, showed May would win 310 seats, down from the 331 seats won by her predecessor David Cameron in 2015. The opposition Labour Party could win 257 seats, up from 232 seats in 2015, YouGov said. Smaller parties, including the Scottish National Party and Northern Irish parties, could win 83 seats, The Times newspaper quoted YouGov as predicting. If the YouGov model turns out to be accurate, May would be well short of the 326 seats needed to form a government in June, when formal Brexit negotiations are due to begin. May called the snap election in a bid to strengthen her hand in negotiations on Britain's exit from the European Union, to win more time to deal with the impact of the divorce and to strengthen her grip on the Conservative Party. But if she does not handsomely beat the 12-seat majority Cameron won in 2015, her electoral gamble will have failed and her authority could be undermined just as she tries to deliver what she has told voters will be a successful Brexit. Sterling traded half a percent lower against the U.S. dollar after the YouGov data was published. It was trading at $1.2800 early on Wednesday. For scenarios on the election, please click on: LANDSLIDE TO LOSING? When May stunned politicians and financial markets on April 18 with her call for a snap election, opinion polls suggested she could emulate Margaret Thatcher's 1983 majority of 144 seats or even threaten Tony Blair's 1997 Labour majority of 179 seats. But polls had shown May's rating slipping over the past month and they fell sharply after she set out plans on May 18 to make some elderly people pay a greater share of their care costs, a proposal dubbed the "dementia tax" by opponents. A total of seven polls carried out since the May 22 Manchester suicide attack have shown May's lead over the Labour Party narrowing, with some suggesting she might not win the landslide predicted just a month ago. The polls painted a complicated picture of public opinion, with voting intentions being influenced by both the deadly Manchester attack and May's unpopular social care proposals. In contrast to YouGov's model, other projections suggested May would win soundly. The Electoral Calculus website, which predicts the results based on polls and electoral geography, said May would win 371 seats and Labour 205 seats. Betting markets give a more than 80-percent probability of May winning an overall majority, though betting markets were wrong ahead of the unexpected Brexit result in the June 23 referendum. The Times said YouGov acknowledged that its predictions were controversial and allowed for a wide margin of error. YouGov Chief Executive Stephan Shakespeare told The Times that the model had been tested during the run-up to the EU referendum last year and that it had consistently put the Leave campaign in the lead. The YouGov research allowed for big variations in the outcome of the election, ranging from as high as 345 seats for the Conservatives, 15 more than their current number, to as low as 274, The Times said. The model allowed YouGov to assess the intention of every type of voter, from where they live to how they voted on Brexit, their age and social background, in order to weight the results. Shakespeare said the figures could change dramatically before June 8. "The data suggests that there is churn on all fronts, with the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats likely to both lose and gain seats," he was quoted as saying. (Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Andrew Heavens) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.