Planet Rugby Forum

Yes, I don't disagree, Santa.

New Statesman wrote:Theresa May: the Brexit PM seeks a mandate

...

In the event, the Prime Minister did indeed announce her intention to call an election on 8 June. “I have only recently and reluctantly come to this conclusion”, she said, “. . . but now I have concluded [it is] the only way to guarantee certainty . . . for the years ahead”.

In my view, it was an eminently sensible decision, even though in making it May has been accused of undermining her reputation for caution. Since she became Prime Minister in July last year, May and her closest advisers have repeatedly said there would be no early general election. Britain has a parliamentary system and the Prime Minister felt no need for an explicitly personal mandate.

An example of what I'm talking about.

I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

FT.com:

Theresa May seeks mandate to deliver Brexit on her own terms

Increased majority would help PM to manage politically tricky transitional deal

https://www.ft.com/content/4d29a78a-242 ... 6?mhq5j=e2

These articles make it clear that they're talking about a major victory handing May a mandate to press on with her vision for the country, particularly on Brexit. Not squeaking through and needing the DUP to bail her out. It's about giving her increased authority; instead, she now has reduced authority.

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

JM2K6 wrote:FT.com:

Theresa May seeks mandate to deliver Brexit on her own terms

Increased majority would help PM to manage politically tricky transitional deal

https://www.ft.com/content/4d29a78a-242 ... 6?mhq5j=e2

These articles make it clear that they're talking about a major victory handing May a mandate to press on with her vision for the country, particularly on Brexit. Not squeaking through and needing the DUP to bail her out. It's about giving her increased authority; instead, she now has reduced authority.

All true, however doesn't change the legitimacy of our government. Red the DUP btw, Labour courted their support in 2010 and 2015.

bimboman wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:FT.com:

Theresa May seeks mandate to deliver Brexit on her own terms

Increased majority would help PM to manage politically tricky transitional deal

https://www.ft.com/content/4d29a78a-242 ... 6?mhq5j=e2

These articles make it clear that they're talking about a major victory handing May a mandate to press on with her vision for the country, particularly on Brexit. Not squeaking through and needing the DUP to bail her out. It's about giving her increased authority; instead, she now has reduced authority.

All true, however doesn't change the legitimacy of our government. Red the DUP btw, Labour courted their support in 2010 and 2015.

That's cool, I'm not claiming it's illegitimate.

JM2K6 wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

JM2K6 wrote:So why do so many political talking heads think there'll be another one before the end of the year, theo?

If there is, it'll be fcuking stupid! 3 different PMs in 18 months? Where the fudge are we? Burkina Faso?

We don't vote in Prime Ministers in general elections. We vote for political parties. And the trust in the Tories to actually govern, particularly with May in charge, is near-zero.

Well if by zero you mean 42.4% of the votes cast.

In any case replace the leader and they are back in the mix, no one actually trusts Labour with the Economy. I voted LD as the dementia tax will directly effect my mother and i wanted to vote against Brexit. I wouldn't have switched for Brexit alone. Take that off the manifesto and my whole family switches back. Were still in aposition where we are borrowing money every month to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed.

In regard to seizing private property, most of the long term vacant property is not fit for human habitation, there are some in transition or being worked on but very few land banked properties. In any case its much quicker to temporarily raise the local housing allowance for the victims and rent properties. As long as they didn't want to live exactly in the same place there would be plenty of private rented properties to house everyone in a matter of a couple of weeks. Just long enough to rebuild the block and move everyone back into a modern safe new property.

Hell housing associations in London could probably house most of them by next Tuesday if they could ignore LA nominations and waiting lists. Just not in LBKC.

Sorry one more point, the Tories would be mad not to wait till the boundary changes due to come in before the next scheduled election.

Spell wrote:Well if by zero you mean 42.4% of the votes cast.

Not ignoring the rest of your post, but everyone thinks the Tories fucked this royally and are in a total mess right now. They gambled and failed. They have a dead lady walking as PM, and no obvious successor (MAYBE Ruth Davidson). They are facing a resurgent Labour, they themselves think May is screwing up the response to the tower disaster, and are in charge of having to deal with Brexit while the concept of "hard Brexit" that May was so keen on appears to be been chucked out the window.

They absolutely need to steady their ship and find a proper leader.

fatcat wrote:So who's going to call this GE before the year end, and why?

Desperate Labour will be calling for one. They know if the Tories hang on until 2018, they may have lost their chance. They're obviously peaking now, and expect to come down.

I just hope the snakes in the Labour party grass come back out to play before long...

JM2K6 wrote:

Spell wrote:Well if by zero you mean 42.4% of the votes cast.

Not ignoring the rest of your post, but everyone thinks the Tories fucked this royally and are in a total mess right now. They gambled and failed. They have a dead lady walking as PM, and no obvious successor (MAYBE Ruth Davidson). They are facing a resurgent Labour, they themselves think May is screwing up the response to the tower disaster, and are in charge of having to deal with Brexit while the concept of "hard Brexit" that May was so keen on appears to be been chucked out the window.

They absolutely need to steady their ship and find a proper leader.

Allof which makes an election less not more likely.

Sandstorm wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

Division of labour during the marriage is their business, but how much each contributed financially should make no difference. Wealth created during the marriage should be split evenly. As a starting point

Anonymous. wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

Division of labour during the marriage is their business, but how much each contributed financially should make no difference. Wealth created during the marriage should be split evenly. As a starting point

By law yes.

Anonymous. wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

Division of labour during the marriage is their business, but how much each contributed financially should make no difference. Wealth created during the marriage should be split evenly.

Obviously. Which means they'll both end up in 2 bed terraces in Surrey instead of the mansion they're accustomed to. They also think Corbyn will give them each £4k a month in benefits to feed and stable their new unicorn.

Sandstorm wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

Division of labour during the marriage is their business, but how much each contributed financially should make no difference. Wealth created during the marriage should be split evenly.

Obviously. Which means they'll both end up in 2 bed terraces in Surrey instead of the mansion they're accustomed to. They also think Corbyn will give them each £4k a month in benefits to feed and stable their new unicorn.

If they gave up working to be home makers for decades their former husbands will no doubt have to give them money to ease their transition from loving wife, bread maker and concubine to old lady with poodle as sex toy

Anonymous. wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

Sandstorm wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:I wish Corbyn would fudge off back to the benches with his weird 70's revolutionary shit.

Selling like hot cakes on Facebook. Two recently divorced women I know who are each about to lose the 4 bedroom homes their husbands (mostly) paid for during the Tory Good Times, are shrieking like banshies for Corbyn to save them!!!!

Division of labour during the marriage is their business, but how much each contributed financially should make no difference. Wealth created during the marriage should be split evenly.

Obviously. Which means they'll both end up in 2 bed terraces in Surrey instead of the mansion they're accustomed to. They also think Corbyn will give them each £4k a month in benefits to feed and stable their new unicorn.

If they gave up working to be home makers for decades their former husbands will no doubt have to give them money to ease their transition from loving wife, bread maker and concubine to old lady with poodle as sex toy

You and me should go on the pull together some time.

Hawk97 wrote:

fatcat wrote:So who's going to call this GE before the year end, and why?

Desperate Labour will be calling for one. They know if the Tories hang on until 2018, they may have lost their chance. They're obviously peaking now, and expect to come down.

I just hope the snakes in the Labour party grass come back out to play before long...

What will the FTSE 100 be at by weeks end please

Anonymous. wrote:

Hawk97 wrote:

fatcat wrote:So who's going to call this GE before the year end, and why?

Desperate Labour will be calling for one. They know if the Tories hang on until 2018, they may have lost their chance. They're obviously peaking now, and expect to come down.

I just hope the snakes in the Labour party grass come back out to play before long...

What will the FTSE 100 be at by weeks end please

7,527.05. Cheers.

Spell wrote:Sorry one more point, the Tories would be mad not to wait till the boundary changes due to come in before the next scheduled election.

Apparently the DUP don't want a boundary review so this may be gorn as well. I sometimes wonder if our politicians aren't really all in one giant conspiracy against us.

Rowdy wrote:

Spell wrote:Sorry one more point, the Tories would be mad not to wait till the boundary changes due to come in before the next scheduled election.

Apparently the DUP don't want a boundary review so this may be gorn as well. I sometimes wonder if our politicians aren't really all in one giant conspiracy against us.

Boundary review plans abandoned as DUP will not back proposals

PLANS for a boundary review that could have given the Tories 20 extra seats have been abandoned because the DUP will not back the proposals.

Why on earth would they back the changes. It would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas

Anonymous. wrote:

Rowdy wrote:

Spell wrote:Sorry one more point, the Tories would be mad not to wait till the boundary changes due to come in before the next scheduled election.

Apparently the DUP don't want a boundary review so this may be gorn as well. I sometimes wonder if our politicians aren't really all in one giant conspiracy against us.

Boundary review plans abandoned as DUP will not back proposals

PLANS for a boundary review that could have given the Tories 20 extra seats have been abandoned because the DUP will not back the proposals.

Why on earth would they back the changes. It would be like Turkeys voting for Christmas

Worth a shot from May. DUP don't strike me as a smart crew and the Tories might have got it by them.

The boundary review thing is a massive thing for the DUP not simply because of it's own electoral vulnerabilities. Most current constituencies have a demographic bias in favour of Unionists of all stripes. The mooted changes would remove that bias by equalising total populations in each new constituency; the net result would be Unionism never holding a seat west of the Bann again and being permanently reduced to one seat in Belfast at most. Essentially Unionism would probably fall from 11/18 seats to 8/17 seats, becoming a Westminster minority for the first time since the foundation of NI. This has already happened in the NI Assembly.

Demographics are massively against Unionism (the adult Nationalist population is expected to pass out the adult Unionist population in 2021) and this is desperate rearguard action by the DUP.

Mixed messages from Labour. On one hand they're cock-a-hoop about the result and on the other hand they're moaning about how the result has undermined May.

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

bimboman wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

You need a break mate. You have been going off the rails since way before the results of the election. Do yourself a favour.

c69 wrote:

Santa wrote:Mixed messages from Labour. On one hand they're cock-a-hoop about the result and on the other hand they're moaning about how the result has undermined May.

What?

He has to think of something to say and he is a Tory. Give the man a break they are getting a kicking at the moment

Anonymous. wrote:

c69 wrote:

Santa wrote:Mixed messages from Labour. On one hand they're cock-a-hoop about the result and on the other hand they're moaning about how the result has undermined May.

What?

He has to think of something to say and he is a Tory. Give the man a break they are getting a kicking at the moment

They are happy and sad that their electoral success has made the Brexit negotiations more difficult. They could have thought about that before.

c69 wrote:

Santa wrote:

Anonymous. wrote:

c69 wrote:

Santa wrote:Mixed messages from Labour. On one hand they're cock-a-hoop about the result and on the other hand they're moaning about how the result has undermined May.

What?

He has to think of something to say and he is a Tory. Give the man a break they are getting a kicking at the moment

They are happy and sad that their electoral success has made the Brexit negotiations more difficult. They could have thought about that before.

I thought according to everyone apart from the electorate that they did try and feck the election up.
By feck May is useless, Labour in London atm is massively winning.

What I'm saying is that Labour should have put country before party and campaigned poorly in order to give May the backing to negotiate Brexit from a position of domestic power. But they were too selfish.

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:This really is a disgraceful policy. The worst he's ever announced, and he has lots of competition.

He cn't do anything about it. It's against the european law on human rights. It's empty crowd pleasing stuff that is pointless.

I don't understand how this is crowd pleasing? Seizure of private property is utterly disgraceful. It goes against the very foundations of human civilisation.

Look at Corbyn's crowds and you see who he is pleasing. Them and the Guardian readers and journalists who are sure it will be other people's second homes that get taken.

Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

El Homerino wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

You need a break mate. You have been going off the rails since way before the results of the election. Do yourself a favour.

I'm more than comfortable with my posting to be honest, but yes that's finally me bullied off the bored I guess.

So I can say :


Politics is important , people should be active, and read, and have a position for a reason. Few here do even amongst otherwise intelligent posters. I'm often accused of being tribal however I've always taken steps,to explain beyond tribal why I have a particular view most of my critics never bother to do more than take trolling or outright dishonest insulting lines (mungomans attack on me being a racist and wishing me dead was a particular high point) , so if that's ME going off the rails then ok.

But the Mods are dishonest and so often join with the bullying approaches especially in regard to liberal views and politics.

As for the people here who think they're liberal. They're mostly not fans of free speech if said speech upsets them and particularly again if their own hypocrisy is pointed out.

bimboman wrote:

El Homerino wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

You need a break mate. You have been going off the rails since way before the results of the election. Do yourself a favour.

I'm more than comfortable with my posting to be honest, but yes that's finally me bullied off the bored I guess.

So I can say :


Politics is important , people should be active, and read, and have a position for a reason. Few here do even amongst otherwise intelligent posters. I'm often accused of being tribal however I've always taken steps,to explain beyond tribal why I have a particular view most of my critics never bother to do more than take trolling or outright dishonest insulting lines (mungomans attack on me being a racist and wishing me dead was a particular high point) , so if that's ME going off the rails then ok.

But the Mods are dishonest and so often join with the bullying approaches especially in regard to liberal views and politics.

As for the people here who think they're liberal. They're mostly not fans of free speech if said speech upsets them and particularly again if their own hypocrisy is pointed out.

Don't go Bimbo you are normally spot on and I enjoy reading you keeping the vile pinkos at bay (except on roundabouts which you are clearly bonkers!!)

Thanks OS, do post real tennis dates again if you're out at Prested hall, I promise to come down looking for you next time.

flaggETERNAL wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:This really is a disgraceful policy. The worst he's ever announced, and he has lots of competition.

He cn't do anything about it. It's against the european law on human rights. It's empty crowd pleasing stuff that is pointless.

I don't understand how this is crowd pleasing? Seizure of private property is utterly disgraceful. It goes against the very foundations of human civilisation.

Look at Corbyn's crowds and you see who he is pleasing. Them and the Guardian readers and journalists who are sure it will be other people's second homes that get taken.

Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

What has need got to do with it?

Or, one person might need a second home to generate rental income for them to live off. Another person might need a second home to bolster their shitty pension. There are a million reasons why they might need one.

bimboman wrote:

El Homerino wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

You need a break mate. You have been going off the rails since way before the results of the election. Do yourself a favour.

I'm more than comfortable with my posting to be honest, but yes that's finally me bullied off the bored I guess.

So I can say :


Politics is important , people should be active, and read, and have a position for a reason. Few here do even amongst otherwise intelligent posters. I'm often accused of being tribal however I've always taken steps,to explain beyond tribal why I have a particular view most of my critics never bother to do more than take trolling or outright dishonest insulting lines (mungomans attack on me being a racist and wishing me dead was a particular high point) , so if that's ME going off the rails then ok.

But the Mods are dishonest and so often join with the bullying approaches especially in regard to liberal views and politics.

As for the people here who think they're liberal. They're mostly not fans of free speech if said speech upsets them and particularly again if their own hypocrisy is pointed out.

Soon the great cleanse will be complete. Then this place can be as right on as it so desperately wants to be.

flaggETERNAL wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:This really is a disgraceful policy. The worst he's ever announced, and he has lots of competition.

He cn't do anything about it. It's against the european law on human rights. It's empty crowd pleasing stuff that is pointless.

I don't understand how this is crowd pleasing? Seizure of private property is utterly disgraceful. It goes against the very foundations of human civilisation.

Look at Corbyn's crowds and you see who he is pleasing. Them and the Guardian readers and journalists who are sure it will be other people's second homes that get taken.

Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

Why do people need two of anything??

Openside wrote:

flaggETERNAL wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:

HurricaneWasp wrote:

eldanielfire wrote: He cn't do anything about it. It's against the european law on human rights. It's empty crowd pleasing stuff that is pointless.

I don't understand how this is crowd pleasing? Seizure of private property is utterly disgraceful. It goes against the very foundations of human civilisation.

Look at Corbyn's crowds and you see who he is pleasing. Them and the Guardian readers and journalists who are sure it will be other people's second homes that get taken.

Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

Why do people need two of anything??

Who can say. I still need two shits a day despite only consuming 2100 calories daily.

bimboman wrote:

El Homerino wrote:

bimboman wrote:

I think you should stfu with your vile party political trolling on these threads ffs
Just for once

Ive bought this reply away from the towers thread as previously requested (which you choose to ignore, because you're ignorant).

You've tried this line of directly trolling me too many times now, so this is the last time of replying to any of your shit. This is a don't bother addressing me again post. I'll not put you in ignore as occasionally you will get too close to the line and unlike any previous PR time for me or other posters will report you when you do.

You need a break mate. You have been going off the rails since way before the results of the election. Do yourself a favour.

I'm more than comfortable with my posting to be honest, but yes that's finally me bullied off the bored I guess.

So I can say :


Politics is important , people should be active, and read, and have a position for a reason. Few here do even amongst otherwise intelligent posters. I'm often accused of being tribal however I've always taken steps,to explain beyond tribal why I have a particular view most of my critics never bother to do more than take trolling or outright dishonest insulting lines (mungomans attack on me being a racist and wishing me dead was a particular high point) , so if that's ME going off the rails then ok.

But the Mods are dishonest and so often join with the bullying approaches especially in regard to liberal views and politics.

As for the people here who think they're liberal. They're mostly not fans of free speech if said speech upsets them and particularly again if their own hypocrisy is pointed out.

snowflake

Openside wrote:

flaggETERNAL wrote:
Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

Why do people need two of anything??

Balls?

/Toga

DragsterDriver wrote:

Openside wrote:

flaggETERNAL wrote:
Why do people need 2 homes anyway?

Why do people need two of anything??

Balls?

/Toga

but actually you only need one (likewise Kidneys)

Returning to the topic it is spectacularly stupid the damage that would be done to these homes would cost the tax payer millions not to mention the legal fees the Kensington elite would throw st keeping the 'riff raff' out of their homes. Frankly they should redevelop the site with über swanky flats and use the resulting billions to build 100's of houses elsewhere.