CelticRambler wrote: » A perfect description of Brexit. Which is mostly being peddled by the Right and Far Right, isn't it?
Deleted User wrote: » For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics. As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying. Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism. Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office. Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum. They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism. The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.
Deleted User wrote: » For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying. Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism. Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office. Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum. They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism. The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.
Deleted User wrote: » based on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Are you giving the same attention to the conservative pledges btw? Can you explain to me how they propose to pay for 40 new hospitals among a blizzard of other promises while also promising tax breaks for the well off?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Yes, thats exactly what he said in response to not one but TWO questions from the assembled hacks about his own popularity as leader and the repeated opposition attacks on him. I think he's a good performer and a sincere, competent leader, but it's a long hard struggle to get that across to sufficient voters without being derailed by the brexit fog. I wouldnt write him off personally anyway.
Deleted User wrote: » I was unaware of that report. So, I withdraw my earlier remarks. We don't know what the figure would be, but it would still be a high figure. However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » he said about the tories "when they go low, we go high" or words to that effect, which struck a cord. the tories have really exposed themselves in the past few days (well many decades one might argue). JRMs' attitude to the Grenfell disaster was quite shocking, apart from being totally inept. really shows their utter contempt of the less-well off in society.
quokula wrote: » You realise that report your quoting later needed to be retracted because it was incorrect right?https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/16/cbi-admits-error-in-196bn-price-tag-for-labour-plans
Deleted User wrote: » Right, and their unrealistic nationalisation plan starts at 196 billion. Saddling the youth with yet more debt. Spending-on-steroids. Totally nuts. But that's always the essence of socialist policies; based on emotion and myth, rather than fact and pragmatism.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I liked Corbyns Boris impression of meeting him in the voting lobby during one of the MV's and asking him what on earth are you doing here, it was very simple but funny and i agree with the poster who commented on this lighter side of the labour leader yesterday. He also suggested that the abolishing private school policy discussed at conference will be softened down to just taking their charitable status off them which is very sensible. Got a massive cheer today when he mentioned it.
The CBI's report estimated there could be a 10.7% increase in debt from bringing industries back into public ownership. This would raise debt levels to 94% of GDP, the highest point since the 1960s, and would cost about £2bn a year, according to the study. It also said that under Labour's plans, savers and pensioners could suffer an estimated £9bn loss to their holdings, which translates into £327 for every household in the country.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » interesting stuff, but imo option/outcome 3 looks to have been underestimated. if the tories continue their campaign the way they've started, then i cannot see them getting enough seats to form anykind of Govt. i tuned into Corbyn's press conference/launch earlier, and i have to admit i found some of it quite credible and compelling. and i am NOT a Corbyn fan by a long stretch. that's just my experience and i don't even have a vote in the UK, but my guess is there are many others like me who do.
GM228 wrote: » Latest Brexit diagram (series 4, v1) released today by John Worth, first since the announcement of a GE:-
hotmail.com wrote: » Sky News doesn't get the viewers the BBC or ITV get. And Murdoch is no longer involved with Sky. So not much point going on to it. I found her comments cringey and click bait stuff. That's my observation.
hotmail.com wrote: » I found her comments cringey and click bait stuff. That's my observation.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Best to put as much weight to that opinion as politicians apparently place in sky news. Why did he turn up to the studio so? What is cringe worthy about Burley?
Rjd2 wrote: » The interview with Julia would have been booked and he just finished one with BBC. Kay would have known this, this is virtue signalling for hits from Kay and I say that as someone who thinks Clev is a banter wanker supreme.
prawnsambo wrote: » The mad thing is that he was actually in the Sky studios and elected to do a radio interview with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio instead.
Quin_Dub wrote: » Will never happen as long as Swinson and Corbyn are in charge. Swinson has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Corbyn.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » and of course let's not forget the lure of getting your hands on the levers of Govt/power and implement your other beliefs and policies which to 99.999% of politicians is irresistible.
Danzy wrote: » If it is the price of coalition then she'll have no choice. Johnson will say there is a deal ready the EU,London and Dublin want it pass and the Muppets in the lib dems and Labour can't agree to coalition.
IAmTheReign wrote: » No one is claiming that the UK won't be able to negotiate FTAs after they leave. People are questioning the logic of leaving the largest and most lucrative FTA in the world in pursuit of merely 'good' FTAs. The UKs value as a trading partner is less than the value of the EU as a trading partner. Why would any major economy give the UK the same terms that they agreed with the EU? The EU will probably negotiate a FTA agreement with the UK but that will take years. And when it does happen the terms of the FTA will be based on what the UK can offer the EU. Trading goods into the EU will also mean the UK will have to e EU regulations. Regulations that will be agreed in Brussels without any input from the UK and compliance with these regulations will be enforced be the EUCJ. That's what 'taking back control' will look like
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
