General Election 2019 thread (47 Viewers)

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Because I understand what has been going on?

No, you don't.

Everyone now has a worse off pension. Yet you want 58 billion given to women because their pension age was brought into line with mens.

Depends which way you look at it. Women want equal rights. And they should have equal rights. But they don't want equal rights when it doesn't benefit them.

So if they get the money for having their state pension raised how about men as theirs was also raised.

It isn't about the equalisation it's about the implementation of it. It was entirely unreasonable of the coalition government to speed up the implementation given that many women had planned their retirement on the basis of the implementation period agreed in 1995.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
But they did provide 200,000 temporary accommodations for the homeless. Does this count? It only costs billions a year which is wasted.
A) The government didn’t, councils did.
B) it was £1.1B and a third of that came straight from existing council budgets.
C) The additional funding came from the department for work and pensions not the £2.2B pledged for the building of starter homes.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
The actual facts are that this well documented liar claimed not to be one (another lie in itself) so the audience had to be given time to pick themselves up of the floor. He answers deliberately to outrage so he has less time to speak because the reality is he has nothing to say.
Even Grendel said Johnson got an easy ride and he did. He got a ranty student who descended rapidly from anythiung approaching coherance, and he was allowed to swap every answer around to Get Brexit Done.

It's reminding me of Family Guy!

 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
(and in some cases, corporations that are nationalised public utilities in their own countries)
The French government has a bigger stake in British railways (Network Rail aside). Seem to remember reading somewhere that the French government was also a recipient of British government handouts to failing franchises because of this.

Network Rail is a good argument also for renationalisation as it’s the perfect example of how a private company can’t be trusted and if you look at any of the ratings for European railways the only reason that the U.K. scores as high as it does is because of our excellent (since back in public ownership) safety record. We fail miserably on the sections of the Rail industry that’s in private ownership.
 
Last edited:

Walsgrave

Well-Known Member
May not yes. But you state it as a certainty.

The lead is so big that Labour would need zero votes in some places to be able to compete in others. The Tories are said to have nearly half of the voters. And there is more than two parties.

No deal? There is already an agreement between the EU and Boris. Keep up.
A lead of 47% may have been sufficient to hand the Tories a handsome majority to the Tories in the past, and it certainly worked in the Thatcher years where they polled around 42%, but I'm afraid that what you fail to grasp is that we are no longer in a two party system. 2017 was a slight deviation from that, where Labour and the Conservatives gained over 82% of the vote but now more than ever it is looking like we will see other parties gain a large percentage of the vote again, throwing up all sports of distortions.

Having a deal with the EU is one thing, but passing it through Parliament is another. I think you need to realise that the likelihood of No Deal come December of next year is more than a slim possibility and not to look at things in such a black and white way, because No Deal is what major businesses/other stakeholders are planning for, and it is therefore you that is behind the times my friend.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
A lead of 47% may have been sufficient to hand the Tories a handsome majority to the Tories in the past, and it certainly worked in the Thatcher years where they polled around 42%, but I'm afraid that what you fail to grasp is that we are no longer in a two party system.
Hmmm, 83 saw a massive Tory majority as much because three parties (well, two parties and an alliance of two parties, for the anally retentive) took sizeable shares of the vote. Alliance weren't that far behind Labour at all in percentage terms.

Maybe Brexit is 2019's Falklands...
 

Walsgrave

Well-Known Member
Hmmm, 83 saw a massive Tory majority as much because three parties (well, two parties and an alliance of two parties, for the anally retentive) took sizeable shares of the vote. Alliance weren't that far behind Labour at all in percentage terms.

Maybe Brexit is 2019's Falklands...
Possibly, but I'd guess not because the Falklands had already been won by that and so despite the initial unpopularity, it was a great source of pride. The outcome of Brexit at this stage is ambiguous to say the least, and there's certainly not a unanimous verdict about its merits.
 
Last edited:

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Thought Boris smashed the leaders debate Friday night after how hostile and bias the audience was, was a disgrace how many times he was interrupted

Yeah almost like Corbyn getting heckled for talking about a 4 day week. Though your fat messiah treated doctors, nurses and teachers asking the questions with contempt
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Then hopefully you'll take my criticism that constantly setting yourself up as arbiter of the truth, and stater of facts is not a good look, especially when it comes to perspectives.

There is one ideology that says oh no, firm moves holding company overseas, that means evil state intervention is going after innocent investors and trying to restrict their dividends - competition will not work if that happens.

The argument for nationalisation of public uitilities has been made many times before - I even made it in my response to theferret earlier. Any self respecting lefty knows that answer, even if they moderate where they choose to draw the line, such as CvD on water rather than power.

Personally, I consider evidence of utility companies putting investors first ahead of public service to be an excellent argument as to why they should be renationalised, and why their role should be skewed towards providing a service and profit to the state, rather than profit to foreign corporations (and in some cases, corporations that are nationalised public utilities in their own countries).

That's all I'll have to say on the matter, because I don't have enough hours in the day to constantly argue over misreadings. FACT
Just one question. Why should anyone be forced to sell something at well under the true value?
 

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member
Interesting you are bringing the Tory's track record on house building into the debate .......It doesn't stand up to srcutiny "The Tories' 2015 manifesto committed the party to building 200,000 'Starter Homes', to be sold at a 20% discount and exclusively available to first-time buyers under the age of 40". Number of homes built under this scheme....a big fat 0. No homes built under flagship 2015 Tory housing pledge, watchdog finds
The Tory's have tried to avoid placing these sort of restriction on major volume housebuilders such as Berkeley and numerous others despite them recording their highest ever margins/profits - and unsuprisingly housebuilders have major links to donations and lobbying of the Conservative party.. Disgusting!
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
No, you don't.



It isn't about the equalisation it's about the implementation of it. It was entirely unreasonable of the coalition government to speed up the implementation given that many women had planned their retirement on the basis of the implementation period agreed in 1995.
I agree with this. But it has been more than women that have been screwed. And the problem is we are all easy targets with pensions, both private and state.
 

SkyBlueCharlie9

Well-Known Member

Astute

Well-Known Member
Possibly, but I'd guess not because the Falklands had already been won by that and so despite the initial unpopularity, it was a great source of pride. The outcome of Brexit at this stage is ambiguous to say the least, and there's certainly not a unanimous verdict about its merits.
You can get a big majority with only 35% of the vote. This is the problem with FPTP.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Only you, Dim and G will argue he comes out of that looking good.
Excuse me. Cut out your normal crap. Jist point out a single time I have ever praised or said anything good about Boris.

Some of the diatribe you come out with is getting well past a joke now.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Interesting you are bringing the Tory's track record on house building into the debate .......It doesn't stand up to srcutiny "The Tories' 2015 manifesto committed the party to building 200,000 'Starter Homes', to be sold at a 20% discount and exclusively available to first-time buyers under the age of 40". Number of homes built under this scheme....a big fat 0. No homes built under flagship 2015 Tory housing pledge, watchdog finds
The Tory's have tried to avoid placing these sort of restriction on major volume housebuilders such as Berkeley and numerous others despite them recording their highest ever margins/profits - and unsuprisingly housebuilders have major links to donations and lobbying of the Conservative party.. Disgusting!
Would you like to make a comment on the Labour history on the subject? They are as bad as each other.
 

Astute

Well-Known Member
Every chuffin election the DM publishes this inaccurate tired article having a dig at the BBC bias. Crack pot journalism at its finest. People should be embarrassed to read or refer to this comic.
Except when they do an article on the side of remain or anti Tory. Then it is acceptable. As has been shown several times before on here.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Every chuffin election the DM publishes this inaccurate tired article having a dig at the BBC bias. Crack pot journalism at its finest. People should be embarrassed to read or refer to this comic.

Hilarious if you look at the actual people in BBC politics since the changes under Osbourne.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Its clever I'd say

Unlike the people who would be taken in by such a blatant piece of propaganda.

But then that, and the other underhand stuff like FactCheck UK, tells you everything you need to know about the Tories at the moment and their opinion of the common person - assume they're thick as pig shit. And given the lead in the polls it appears they're right.

If Labour did it would you consider it clever, or underhanded?

Btw, have you read any of the manifestos yet?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Thought Boris smashed the leaders debate Friday night after how hostile and bias the audience was, was a disgrace how many times he was interrupted

He was terrible, and only saved from total humilation because of Swinson. He got interrupted because he wasn't answering question and answering in a confrontational, antagonistic manner. It got that hostile because of his approach that led to the crowd getting more and more exasperated.
 

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
. He got interrupted because he wasn't answering question and answering in a confrontational, antagonistic manner. It got that hostile because of his approach that led to the crowd getting more and more exasperated.
Thats just bollocks dreamer and you know it, he was heckled and interrupted throughout unfairly
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Obviously, both parties seem to be growing money trees however labours is extraordinary

Conservatives is much more sensible than nationalising everything

I'll ask again, why do you prefer the current model to nationalisation?

Our water companies are paying huge dividends to foreign investors out of the profits they make from the British tax payer, we bail out failing rail franchises with British tax payers money yet successful franchise keep the profits - are you happy with that? The infrastructure of both industries is poor, we could be improving it instead of sending money abroad in the form of dividends.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
How can you not agree that the audience was bias towards Corbyn

because of who the audience manager was, to suggest she picked a pro Corbyn audience is frankly ludicrous.
There is also a long history of tory plants as well as the fact that farage, who isn't an elected MP has been on more this century than everyone with the exception of Kenneth Clark.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Obviously, both parties seem to be growing money trees however labours is extraordinary

Conservatives is much more sensible than nationalising everything
The gap between Labour pledges and what they intend to raise to meet it is far narrower than the Tories. And the Tories missed loads of existing commitments out of their manifesto. What ever magic money tree forest you think labour needs the Tories needs to many acres bigger. They’re either not ending austerity or their manifesto isn’t worth wiping your arse on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top