Jump to content

Recommended Posts

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyway back to Theresa May who has this morning

> been accused of demeaning the office of Prime

> Minister by asking people to

>

> "imagine the Labour leader ?naked and alone? in

> the EU negotiating chamber."

>

>

> OoohErrr



Now that's made me think of PMTM 'naked and alone' in the chamber


Oh.....crikey!

Much as I detest TM, it's a shame people don't know the phrase "naked into the conference chamber" from Nye Bevan's anti-unilateralist speech in 1957. It's been used many times since in the context of tying a negotiator's hands ? but also it's clearly a dig at JC's unilateralism. A tough but not unfair blow in the context of an election campaign?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> oh John L, that is dirty tactics you've

> highlighted.

>

>

> Glad to see base principles have not been

> overlooked in the campaign.



:)


This having figures to hand thing is beginning to get

at me now.


Have a dossier, if someone wants figures hand them the

dossier and say "it's all costed and it's all in there"


Too late now.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> miga Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > titch juicy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The vast majority of IS wealth comes from

> > robbery,

> > > extortion, oil revenue, taxation and

> > kidnapping.

> > > Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes

> > from

> > > donations,

> >

> > Would love to see the evidence for this.

>

>

> There's a fair bit on this in the Washington Post

> piece.

>

>

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/1

> 1/18/how-isis-makes-its-money/?utm_term=.d404c6bd1

> 3d8



It's the "less than 5%" I found dubious.


The article you mention talks about "100s of $M from Kuwait for the various rebel groups". It's two years old (and oil supply lines have been hit since). It also talks about porous borders. Wars are really expensive and they're fighting on several different fronts.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is it with idiots asking for figures off the

> top of peoples head at the moment.

>

> Right Admin - how many users were logged on here

> at 21 October 2013 Come on Come on :). You'd look

> it up not have it at the top of your head - it's

> the internet/syslog era.

>

> (Edit: in response to outrage at Corbyn forgetting

> a figure on Woman's Hour)


Er that's a bizarre John there's no equivalence - Corbyn was on a relevant audience show talking about that particular policy, it wasn't some random fact and he should know the approximate costs of flagship policy but Labour aren't bothered about the costs - it's all free roll up roll up with your votee

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What is it with idiots asking for figures off

> the

> > top of peoples head at the moment.

> >

> > Right Admin - how many users were logged on

> here

> > at 21 October 2013 Come on Come on :). You'd

> look

> > it up not have it at the top of your head -

> it's

> > the internet/syslog era.

> >

> > (Edit: in response to outrage at Corbyn

> forgetting

> > a figure on Woman's Hour)

>

> Er that's a bizarre John there's no equivalence -

> Corbyn was on a relevant audience show talking

> about that particular policy, it wasn't some

> random fact and he should know the approximate

> costs of flagship policy but Labour aren't

> bothered about the costs - it's all free roll up

> roll up with your votee


I know - but annoyed by this spoiling of the campaign(s)by journalists trying to make a name.

As I said above the Policy matters and the Costs can be in a dossier provided on request (proving no issues with costing).


Barry Gardineer sums up my views on this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-40097914/anger-at-media-focus-on-corbyn-s-childcare-cost-stumble


I'm not impressed by men that quote figures - any accountant can do that - the policy has to be assumed costed unless it is proved not by journalists looking at the manifesto (other than the Tories of course who costed nothing).

Well, there are issues with costings. The IFS are about as unimpeachable as you can get and they've slagged off both Tory and Labour tax and spend figures:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/conservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, there are issues with costings. The IFS are

> about as unimpeachable as you can get and they've

> slagged off both Tory and Labour tax and spend

> figures:

> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/26/c

> onservative-labour-tax-spending-plans-ifs-general-

> election-manifesto



But only one side makes it to the headline of "World at One"


At the end of the interview with Barry Gardiner the host admits that it's better if journalists lay of the how much is this ?, how much is that ? hoping to catch politicians out -- but it's been cut out Aghhhhh

It's better because otherwise it allows the parties to get away it. The IFS looked at the overall figures, not piecemeal for each particular pledge, as the latter can always be 'funded' if you ignore all the other pledges. And I reckon the Beeb has been as hard as it can be on the Tories on the matter of spending plans, even though the Tories craftily decided to put very few figures next to their pledges.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Didn't Philip Hammond balls something similar up

> too? Was it reported? (it must've been if i know

> about it, but perhaps it didn't sit as BBC

> website's main headline all day)


He got HS2 costings wrong - was reported but not the big fuss being made here


Edit: May also said children could be fed school meals for 6.8 pence each apparently.

I was once on a minor radio show and got my millions and billions mixed up. But I corrected myself. I don't remember a lot of fuss being made. Not sure how many listen to Three Counties Radio consumer show, but I know that these things can become viral. I've had media training so in a good position to criticise others. Starting point is to sound human and in touch with the audience. Corbyn trumps May on that, but this thread has also given fair comment on him too. The labour further education guy in Newsnight the other day was awful who didn't have an answer for how we'd pay for all young people going to university.


Here's my advice to TM. So PM you voted to stay in Europe so you don't want to leave. Answer - yes I believed that Britain was better off in Europe, I respect the view of the referendum and the British public, and I will work hard to ensure that we get the best deal.


There you go, easy isn't it.


Here's another one. So Mr Corbyn, you want to get rid of the monarchy. Yes I am a republican as are a fair number of people, but this is not labour policy so wont be happening and is not a debating point for the election. He almost got this right last night

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Another embarrassing interview when Corbyn failed

> to come up with the cost of Child Care.

>

> One of Labour's prime Manifesto Policies

>

> Every time he is asked a question he reaches

> nervously for his little Red Book

>

> #Man is Joke

>

> DulwichFox



That simply isn't true.


Stop reaching.

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A friend of a friend is a journalist and filmmaker

> from Beirut, currently living in Istanbul had this

> to say on Corbyn's foreign policy.

>

>

>

> "Firstly, Paxman was f'ing crap, let's get that

> out of the way. Looks like his race is run, time

> for him to retire.

>

> Secondly, remember when Donald Trump said he was

> going to make a deal with the Israelis and

> Palestinians for peace? Remember how he was mocked

> for this? Remember how his words weren't just

> accepted but they were also scrutinised and found

> to be total bollocks? Yeah, Corbyn does that on

> Syria and he gets a loud round of applause.

>

> Again, I'm going to break this down into tiny

> detail so the sceptics among you can understand

> what is being said.

>

> Firstly Jeremy Corbyn's approach to combating ISIS

> abroad is to "cut of arms and funding" for ISIS.

> Let's start unpacking that. The international

> coalition against ISIS have been "cutting off arms

> and funding" for ISIS since the very beginning of

> their campaign against them. What people do not

> seem to understand, no matter how many times it is

> plainly explained, is that Islamic State do not

> receive huge amounts of external funding.

>

> The vast majority of IS wealth comes from robbery,

> extortion, oil revenue, taxation and kidnapping.

> Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes from

> donations, those donations are from private

> citizens and are very difficult to trace. Saudi

> Arabia and the Gulf States are categorically not

> funding Islamic State, they are part of the

> anti-IS coalition and are actively fighting

> Islamic State. Anyone found guilty of financing

> Islamic State in one of those countries would be

> imprisoned for a very long time. So talking about

> arms deals to Saudi Arabia doesn't change anything

> with regards to ISIS, no matter how many times

> leftists write articles about it.

>

> Now onto arms, ISIS have a lot of weaponry, the

> vast majority of it stolen. They have stolen it

> from the US-backed Iraqi army, they have stolen

> them from Gulf-armed rebel groups, they have

> stolen them from the Russian backed Assad regime.

> There are no large convoys of arms coming in to

> Islamic State territory from neighbouring

> governments. If there were, it would require air

> strikes to destroy those convoys, air strikes

> which Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end.

>

> Therefore the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is going to

> stop ISIS by stopping fantasy revenue funds it

> does not receive and arms shipments that do not

> exist is as fanciful as trying to chop down an oak

> tree by strangling it. It will not work, it is not

> grounded in reality. However instead of mocking

> his answers the British public loudly applaud him

> because they do not understand this. Then, when

> this is pointed out by those who understand the

> situation, they are then called Tories or

> imperialists or war mongers simply for pointing

> out the facts.

>

> NEXT, Syria.

>

> We are back in the realms of Donald Trump's

> fantasy peace deal in Israel here. Jeremy Corbyn's

> frequent positions on Syria are as follows, 1) he

> wants a negotiated settlement and the restarting

> of the peace process which includes Iran. 2) He

> thinks all action should be carried out through

> the UN.

>

> Both of these positions are based on fallacies,

> neither of them are ever properly scrutinised by

> the British press. Firstly, Corbyn has been

> talking about involving Iran in the peace process

> since the very start of the crisis as if they have

> not been involved. In reality, Iran has been

> involved in the Syria "peace talks" for many years

> now, in fact, they run the show. Iran and Russia

> are the bulwark against international

> accountability for the Assad regime, they are as

> intransigent on diplomacy re:Assad as ISIS would

> be re: Baghdadi.

>

> Iran and Russia are in Syria to preserve the Assad

> regime. While Corbyn says there is "no military

> solution in Syria", Assad, Putin and Tehran

> disagree and are pushing forward with their plan

> to cleanse all of Syria. Understanding this is

> important, the issue isn't negotiating peace in

> Syria, it is negotiating what a future Syria will

> look like and what process the international

> community can take to hold parties accountable to

> those agreements.

>

> People seem so quick to forget that the Russians

> negotiated an aid convoy into Aleppo and then

> bombed it before it could enter. This is what we

> are dealing with there, this is not a case of the

> British government being bad at diplomacy, it is

> about the international community being paralysed

> by continuously trying to talk their way out of a

> conflict in which the party holding the power has

> no intention of talking about anything.

>

> Furthermore, Corbyn has repeatedly refused to call

> for Assad to step down or transition out of power.

> This is why the rebels are fighting, they want

> Assad gone. There is no reality in which rebels

> will surrender to Assad and live happily under

> Assad. If Corbyn has no position on Assad's

> future, unlike the British government who are

> still insistent on a transition and refusal to

> normalise relations, then Corbyn won't be

> negotiating for peace in Syria, he will be

> negotiating a victory for the Assad regime. A

> victory for Assad will not ensure peace but will

> instead fuel the fires of extremism and war for

> many decades to come.

>

> The last point is the UN, and this is critical.

> Corbyn continues to push the fallacy that any

> military action must be decided through the United

> Nations. Corbyn rejected and still opposes the

> Libya No Fly Zone. The Libya No Fly Zone was UN

> security council mandated. So, in the last example

> of the UN backing military action, Corbyn opposed.

> He would oppose UN backed military action in Syria

> too. Most importantly, if Corbyn was prime

> minister he would have a veto at the UN. He can't

> have a neutral position on military action, he is

> either for it or against it and Britain's vote in

> the UNSC is critical to that action. Therefore

> there can be no UN-backed military action unless

> Jeremy Corbyn either votes for it or abstains.

>

> This also fails to include the fact that Russia,

> which backs Assad and commits near-daily war

> crimes in Syria, also has a veto at the UNSC and

> have been vetoing any and all meaningful UN action

> on Syria, including against chemical weapons, for

> nearly 7 years. Pushing Syria towards the UN is

> essentially Corbyn giving Vladimir Putin veto

> powers over the entirety of British foreign policy

> in the Middle East.

>

> Look, you might not care about this stuff, which I

> can accept. But what I can't accept is the

> mindless circus applause as if we were all seals

> waiting by the side of the pool for someone to

> throw us a fish. These are dangerously naive

> positions to hold at best and criminally

> neglectful positions to hold at worse.To see

> people who genuinely don't understand the conflict

> continue to push his foreign policy words as

> "principled" is deeply frustrating. I know many of

> you have your hearts in the right places, but what

> you are endorsing is not only stupid but also

> massively counterproductive. It is also not in

> line with the frequent statements put out by human

> rights organisations such as Amnesty

> International.

>

> I know you all care more about what you think will

> happen to the NHS and schools and that's fine, I

> understand, but that does not give you the right

> to start pushing this insidious nonsense to people

> when you don't even have the facts to back it up.

> Please, for the love of god, scrutinise this man

> like you would any other politician.

>

> Just because you talk a strong game about "peace"

> doesn't mean your policy approach won't make

> things worse both at home and abroad.

>

> And, if we have anything to go off, after Donald

> Trump carried out a barely significant strike

> against an Assad air base, Corbyn asked his own

> shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith how the

> Labour party should respond. Griffith allegedly

> said that Labour should support a proportionate

> response, Corbyn overruled this and condemned the

> strikes. Corbyn is overruling his own defence

> secretary because he thinks he knows best when he

> clearly doesn't. This is a troubling precedent to

> set."


No reflection on the content but I just wish I had the time to spend writing that that lot.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is it with idiots asking for figures off the

> top of peoples head at the moment.

>


I's like business, if you go into a meeting and you havn't got your figures and facts at your finger tips, you are toast. It certainly is in the businees that I'm in.


Same with party leaders -they ought to be fully conversant with the numbers and costings.


And for heaven's sake, today was the day JC launched his party's child care policy.


Given that JC came accross well last night on C4 as a confident orator, but he lost all that cudos today when he couldn't talk the numbers on child care.


TM last night recited all the numbers without hesitation. And when it comes to costing manifesto promises, it's the person who knows the numbers that has credibility with the electorate.


At least, if JM becomes PM he will most most likely lead a Labour government that will be consistent with all the others in that every previous Labour govt has ended with a financial crisis caused by overspending and overborrowing. Every single one.


Then Labour get kicked out by the electorate. Then the Tories get in and impose austerity to balance books and so they become unpopular and get kicked out.


And so the cycle repeats itself. Plus ca change.

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> TM last night recited all the numbers without

> hesitation.


Well, I wish you good luck in your business with discerning observations of this quality.


Mrs May recited the size of the dementia tax cap (and its costings), the specific businesses that will be exempt from the immigration cap (and what those caps will be for those who are not going to be exempt), the quantitative effects on university funding of including students (WHAT?) in the immigration cap, the likely size of tax increases to pursue her stupid quasi-monetarist belief in balancing the fiscal books, the probable extent of National Insurance rises after she has sacked Hammond, the true cost of Trident (which she is too Christian, thank God, to ever use), the likely rise in the number of homeless in her Tory administration, the size of the numerical imbalance between the housing supply we need and what we will get etc etc.


Oh, and she was good enough, and honest enough (because it is only Corbyn, as the song does (not) have it, who lies) to include an explicit contrast in the projected cost between the only two policies she is offering us of A. A hard Brexit (well, shall we say 10% of GDP per annum, probably continuing for rather a long time?) B. Paying off the EU (the downpayment alone is ?100bn). Of course she was very happy to discuss this, as its vital to the future of our nation: and people should be apprised of the facts before they vote.


Sorry about the rant, but really Goose you do sometimes say some extraordinary things.

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> At least, if JM becomes PM he will most most

> likely lead a Labour government that will be

> consistent with all the others in that every

> previous Labour govt has ended with a financial

> crisis caused by overspending and overborrowing.

> Every single one.


The Attlee government from 1945-51 oversaw a 40% reduction in national debt even while establishing the health service, launching a hugely ambitious programme of social improvement and maintaining a huge army of occupation in Germany and elsewhere. It did not end in a financial crisis.

Green Goose, I am seriously interested. As a successful businessperson, if you could borrow via 50 year gilts at less than 3% to expand your business what would be 'over-borrowing', given UK plc GDP average future growth forecasts - please feel free to give an approximate figure, no need to be exact :-)

Sky news running story tonight of latest Times poll (headline in The Times tomorrow) predicting hung parliament. May is toast.


Poll makes the point that rendelH made tonight on other thread - huge differential voting patterns expected. So Tories may get largest share of vote by some distance (a la Clinton) and yet get way fewer seats not only than avalanche expected, but fewer than those they already have.


Basically, they can accrue as many UKIP/fox-hunting voters as they shamelessly can outside the Cosmopolis: but that is not how the makeup of Parliament will be decided in a world where (with the dementia tax) they have attacked their own core vote.


Hurrah! That would mean Brexit is dead and we can return to sanity.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • @Pereira Neves "Cuppa with a Coppa" is a misrepresentation as PCSOs are not real police.   They have no more powers of arrest that any public citizen. They may have the "authority" to advise the regular police of a crime - just like Joe Public. One exception is that they can issue fixed penalty notices to people who cycle on a footpath. We see people cycling on the footpath every day but have never seen a PCSO issue a fixed penalty notice to anybody. No  qualifications are needed to become a PCSO.  At best, all they do is reassure and advise the public with platitudes.      
    • Right.  Already too many people saying “labour pushed for longer and more stringent lockdowns” which if nothing else, does seem to give credence the notion that yes people can be brainwashed    Nothing ...  Nothing Labour pushed for was about longer lockdowns.  Explicitly, and very clearly they said “lock down early OR we will be locking down for longer “   ie they were trying to prevent the longer lockdowns we had   But “positive thinking” and “nothing to see here” from Johnson led to bigger problems    as for the hand-wavery about the economic inheritance and markets being spooked by labour budget - look - things did get really really and under last government and they tried to hide it.  So when someone tries to address it, no one is going to be happy.  But pretending all was tickety boo is a child’s response 
    • What would you have done differently, Rockets? I cannot, for the life of me, think of a financial strategy that would have satisfied 'working people' and businesses and driven growth and reduced the deficit. But I'm no economist. On another note, since we're bashing Labour, one thing that really got my goat was Labour's reaction to  Kemi Badenoch being elected leader of the opposition. When our own dear Ellie Reeves was asked for her reaction to KB's election, the first thing she said was "I'm proud that she's the first black woman to lead a political party, but..." Congratulating someone for being black (she's Nigerian FFS, not 'black') and female is such an insult. You'd be forgiven for thinking that that's all Labour sees... and it completely detracts from her achievements as a politician. It's almost as if they were implying that she'd done well in spite of her race and sex. If that's not racist... I think Kemi is an absolute nut job. People in her own party have said she'd start a brawl in an empty room and would cross the street to bite your ankle. But that kind of makes me like her. And if anyone can hold Labour's feet to the fire, she can.  (Ex labour party member here, who voted Keir for leader of the party, BTW, in case anyone wants to start a pile-on and call me a Tory lover). 
    • Their comms has been diabolical. The "son of a toolmaker" and "working people" soundbites may have placated an electorate before an election but they will come back to haunt you after it and will bite you hard if things don't go well.  If they don't improve things soon it is going to be a long parliament for them and there are no signs things are getting better. Amazing as they had 14 years to prepare for this but being in opposition is far, far easier than running a country.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...