Didn't he duck out of the EU Ref debates?Bum.I should stick to 'Is this the ghost of my credibility?' posts.
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Bum.
Just claim you never said it. "Fake Forums, with their failing ratings focusing on things I never said instead of the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. Sad."
She could go on a TV debate and have very little control on the questions she gets asked or go on the BBC and be interviewed by either the former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association and the Conservative Party Youth group or the former chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students. It must have been a difficult decision.
The people voted for Brexit, not the Conservatives. Any government would be going down the same path now.
The offer of a referendum was a Conservative policy... a gamble by Cameron that backfired massively. Only a Conservative Government would be going down this path as without them - no referendum.
Thing is, the Tories are doing a terrible job of cutting the deficit. We are walking out of the EU, our main trading partner and the number one reason we have any growth at all. If Scotland leaves, then despite what the SNP might be saying, they will become a corporate tax haven like Ireland, and leech off of the rUK even more.
If we keep the Tories in, we will continue to have slow or no growth. The state will shrink and debt will rise.
Do they have any plan at all to get us back in the black?
Keep on killing poor people and watch the funerals industry boom.
Despite my psychiatrist's best efforts, I still believe that this was all planned: Cameron was looking for a way out; the desire for an EU exit was far more widespread amongst Conservatives (not merely a 'lunatic fringe') than reported; and stalking horse Nigel Farage suddenly got more publicity than the Kardashians; these things aren't coincidental, IMO.
Yeah why not. We're not in a dictatorship (yet) so I'd take Labour over the Tories any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
And yet statistics posted in this very thread suggest otherwise but i guess if people repeat something enough then it becomes a truism.
same plan the Tories have always had since the great depression, through the 70's and 80's to post the 2008 crash...... sell the poor down the river till they have a use for them again
I should point out that Labour are the ones to most recently propose a Sovereign Wealth Fund, although a Tory MP has been interested too
https://www.ft.com/content/dcce2e16-2af9-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca
http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/upl...ncing-John-Penrose-MP-November-2016-FINAL.pdf
The problem with that is our fund would be tiny.
https://www.ft.com/content/dcce2e16-2af9-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca
http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/upl...ncing-John-Penrose-MP-November-2016-FINAL.pdf
The problem with that is our fund would be tiny.
I don't think the majority of Conservatives wanted/want to leave though... and I think the offer of a referendum was an attempt to appease those factions within the party and it wouldn't do any harm in winning some votes from UKIP. Given the damage this is likely to do to Cameron's legacy longer term... I'm not sure he would have seriously wanted to step down that way.
Oh yeah, that's far more likely than my conspiracy theory, chief.
According to a Spectator article from last year..
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/...xit-who-doesnt-and-who-is-still-on-the-fence/
What about the people that voted him in twice? Should he not represent them first? I'm sure none of them want a center left leader that just ends up being a form of tory lite
What does Nick Clegg's manifesto have to do with the 2017 election? You are missing the crucial point that Corbyn is committed to a hard Brexit and that he is well known to be anti Europe on a personal level. It is the key point here.
The other key issue is his ability as a leader, the trust that the public has in him to lead a country and there isn't any.
I don't remember him running as an anti-EU candidate in the leadership election. I do however know loads of people who were big supporters and had joined the Labour party purely because of him, who totally lost faith (and gave up their memberships) after he came out as pro-Brexit.
This anecdotal evidence matches conversations I've had. Unless the campaign goes well (which it definitely could do, expectations couldn't possibly be lower), Labour are going to be annihilated to a ludicrous degree. I think we're looking at the much lower end of current projections. 150-170 seats.
It has a lot to do with the post i was replying to based on Lib Dems standing. Funny how discussion works.
Labour (i.e. the party) as thats what we're discussing is not for a hard Brexit, its for making the best out of the referendum result. Good to know Corbyn hates the continent of Europe though.
The exit negotiations will be complete before the end of 2018. New trade negotiations may be ongoing for many years to come - this is if she insists on a hard brexit.
Being the leader of the Liberal party, thinking homosexuality is a sin, but supporting gay rights is probably as Liberal as you can get
Corbyn seems quite keen on a norway style deal, so I am not sure where you get this hard brexit policy from. Its not something he has ever said as far as I can see, he talks about retaining membership of the free trade zone, and workers rights have long been his line in the sand, so I am not sure where this hard brexit is coming from.
fair point... if incredibly confusing.
Feck me, what a thread. I was tagged in on page 1 by @Charlie Foley although I have absolutely no idea why.
Kicking? I stood up to some baseless, and frankly libellous accusations of wrongdoing for advising someone that they had a pretty big risk exposure in their cyber security protocol.
Just as well you did too!
Well done ITV. May will either look weak (and even more prone to u-turns) or cowardly. She'll still win, but it all helps.
They're looking to host a debate, are they?
You're not being paranoid.
http://highexistence.com/wonder-ter...ents-misuse-media-manipulate-bewildered-herd/
This article about Noam Chomsky on Propaganda offers a theory on how Cameron did a deal with Rupert Murdoch (pro-Brexit):
The main reason for the Corbyn movement is because the left-wing of Labour really wanted an MP from the solid left-wing of the party to stand, and Corbyn was the only one who was really up for it. As a speaker he's okay. Better than May, probably, but then that's not saying much for her.
As for the rest of it, all I'm really seeing at this stage is excuses for his inevitable defeat. Yes, the media have treated him unfairly. Yes, his party have continually plotted against him...but, well, quite frankly that doesn't matter to a lot of voters. Either he wins and gets his party into power or he doesn't...and right now it's looking like he won't. At some point he's got to take some responsibility of his own for the current mess. What are his flagship policies, for example? How's he planning to promote himself as a genuine PM over the coming weeks? How's he going to negotiate Brexit, and why will he do a better job of it than the Tories?
It might be untrue but quite frankly that doesn't matter because it's about how he's perceived. As a whole he's deeply unpopular among the electorate and struggles to connect with people outside his base. He might not be part of the elite, but he's a comfortably living MP who's spent most his career rebelling against his own party. That's how a lot of people see him and, for rightfully or wrongfully, they don't see him as a hard-working, capable man who connects with them. Only his core support seems to see him as that, and his core support isn't going to win an election.
And again...his socialist vision is all well and good if he actually can implement it. As it stands all he's doing is ensuring Britain isn't going to have a serious socialist party at the top level for decades to come. Presuming the moderates/Blairites/whatever we want to call them resume control after the election, they'll be able to refer to Corbyn every time Labour's left-wing really wants someone in power.
The problem is, as the Tories like to repeat as mantra, that Labour didn't run a budget surplus even before the financial crisis.
http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm
It's just not a sensible way of running a country, and this applies to any of them. USA, UK, Germany, Japan, etc.
So, why can't we just borrow money ad infinitum? After all, it's perfectly common to get a mortgage... and then another one and another one, only stopping when you die. And the UK Government doesn't have a life expectancy, so they can borrow money forever?
You can, and that's fine. But doing this is a perfect way to create brutal and crippling inequality.
You could view the UK Government as the owner of much of the UK Wealth, of which, every UK Citizen is an equal shareholder. As the UK Government gets richer, we all get richer. As the UK Government gets poorer, we all get poorer. The Tories say that Labour should have "put away money for a rainy day", but I think it's even more fundamental than that...
Norway has their oil fund. An $892 billion fund that helps pay for the running of their country and will help even further in future generations. They are by no means, the only country to have one of these. Lot's of countries have them. They simply use the money to invest in the global market, and as Warren Buffett knows, the value of the fund will increase by approximately 7% above inflation. That doesn't sound like much, but over 35 years, in grows in value by 10x above inflation. Over 70 years, the fund it grows in value by 100x above inflation. So this sounds like a pretty nifty thing to have, right. Could help pay for country. Just like a pension, put £1000 away today, and take out £10,000 when we retire...
Well the UK doesn't have one of these. We don't have a fancy wealth fund. We've been one of the richest countries for a long time, (occasional periods of crippling debt when we had to rescue a King or fund a War aside), and yet we have no super-kitty kept in reserve. And we're a bit short on fancy natural resources like oil.
Instead, we're taking the opposite approach, borrowing more and more money and putting that debt onto future generations (partly us, partly our kids). Maybe we should sell off the crown jewels. Privatise the Royal Family. Get sponsorship from Barclays.
But all of this is sad really. The rich will become super-rich as the money they hold doubles, and doubles and doubles again. The poor will become poorer as the debt we hold doubles and doubles and doubles again.
Debt is a useful tool; Want to build a fancy bridge that will bring in £1m a year... borrow £5m to build it. Great! But we are all going to get poorer and poorer as the rich get richer and richer.
Note - I am not saying we need austerity. Cutting back on spending when you need growth is fundamentally wrong too.
Edit x1 - I should point out, Labour were the ones to most recently propose a wealth fund
There's little truth to the piling debt onto children mantra. Its not a business or a household, ROI isn't the driving factor, the money the goverment spends does not evaporate.
Yep, will be funny if she's empty seated. I'm no massive fan of the TV debate format because they tend to descend into shouting matches instead of promoting actual debate, but there should be some platform on which party leaders/prominent politicians debate policy in the lead-up to an election.
That says more about the people you know that it does about Corbyn, had they never ever heard him talk about Europe and the eu before, ever?
The whole Remain camp really was quite poor, admittedly. The referendum itself was put together very quickly to be held within a matter of months, perhaps making an uncertain, kneejerk result more certain, and Cameron himself was quite weak during campaigning. Even saw someone make the point half-jokingly that holding it during the Euros, a time when England/Britain was at competition with Europe, was a pretty terrible idea.
I could buy him making a deal to hold the referendum but the whole 'then I'll make sure we lose it!' part is way too '10th dimensional chess' for my liking. It was so tight that a single headline or event the day before could have swung it the other way. Quite plausible that Murdoch pushed for the referendum, confident that his media mouthpieces could swing the vote though.
Probably not, they'd probably not even thought about it as Labour are pro-EU anyway, and then later heard him say he supported the Remain campaign and actually believed him.
Good stuff. As Cheesy said, they are a bit of a nonsense but the government shouldn't be allowed to stop them happening just because they think their leader wouldn't benefit from them.
.
A decade ago there was a farm crisis, drought, and power crisis simultaneously in my state. The only places getting 24*7 electricity in rural areas were crematoriums because of the suicide rate.
A decade ago there was a farm crisis, drought, and power crisis simultaneously in my state. The only places getting 24*7 electricity in rural areas were crematoriums because of the suicide rate.
I'm not sure the debate stuff is going to have much impact, the public are probably so sick of elections at this point that they just want to get to the booths and vote. But I am (very) often wrong.
Also just saw that Clive Lewis voted against the election, not entirely surprising.
Also just saw that Clive Lewis voted against the election, not entirely surprising.