Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:54 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 581 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2683
So in the real world what has T May done for us. less police on streets, the Nhs is still shit, care home's run by profit making bastards who Employ unqualified abusive twats who should be in jail.
Our Rail service is third rate and Heathrow gets the green light yet a wave barrage in Swansea gets turned down so much for green issues'
She's done nothing, she should have stood up to the tory right and said bollocks to you and done a deal with Labour, how we have the worst case scenario, dear old Boris or Gove 2 lying twats for the price of one, people who want us to crash out of Europe why, so that their companies they run can do deals without the rules and regs Europe brings, more money into their pockets.

We must either a fresh referendum, now that people to thick to see the lies in 2016 are now exposed, or a an Election, Boris will be a disaster and I worry there are plenty of people stupid enough to vote for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.


While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18257
Quote:
Raab could be caught out by some old fashioned affair uncovering as he's been flaunting his wife in the papers lately.


Raab looks and seems credible, and usually speaks well, which is why it's shocking these pretty massive bits of "detail" seem to pass him by.

Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12454
Location: West of Londinium
The Conservatives are irrevocably split on Brexit. May was the unity candidate and look how that turned out. Put a Brexiter in charge who puts no-deal firmly back in play and they will lack support the same as a Remainer pushing the CU compromise. Grieve & chums would rather put a marxist in power than leave the EU in any meaningful sense so expect a no confidence vote before the October deadline.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12454
Location: West of Londinium
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3727
Location: Still at the end of the world
SamShark wrote:
Quote:
Raab could be caught out by some old fashioned affair uncovering as he's been flaunting his wife in the papers lately.


Raab looks and seems credible, and usually speaks well, which is why it's shocking these pretty massive bits of "detail" seem to pass him by.

Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?


Here's a nice James O'Brien view on Raab. I know Bimbo, Mick and the other hard core brexshiiters just dismiss him out of hand, but the clips of Raab in the video shows just what a piece of shit Raab really is.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109110453073047553


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3727
Location: Still at the end of the world
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 31638
Location: Planet Rock
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18257
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Maybe so, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about my delusions.

For avoidance of doubt, if I become PM I will start saying revoke is the will of the people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12454
Location: West of Londinium
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.

Lies and fraud on both sides. According to YouGov the vast majority of Leavers had made their minds up long before the campaigning started.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12454
Location: West of Londinium
SamShark wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Maybe so, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything about my delusions.

For avoidance of doubt, if I become PM I will start saying revoke is the will of the people.

I've no doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6735
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 13349
Location: Above you.
Gospel wrote:
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.

Lies and fraud on both sides. According to YouGov the vast majority of Leavers had made their minds up long before the campaigning started.


Also according to YouGov only 25% think no deal will be a good outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.


While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.



Eldanski is spending again.


What a clown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.



The 500,000 job losses and instant recession ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5505
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair

He may be caught out by the backstabbing powerplays of his opponents if he's the decent person you suggest and is unaware of the cvnts he's up against.


Last edited by message #2527204 on Sun May 26, 2019 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18257
bimboman wrote:
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.



The 500,000 job losses and instant recession ?


Do you mind providing a link for that - I ask as I can't be arsed - but I just want to check that Osborn said that a leave vote would cause those things instantly, or whether leaving the EU would cause those things.

Along with the leaflet, it seems to be your stock reason why all leave lies are acceptable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12454
Location: West of Londinium
Plato'sCave wrote:
Gospel wrote:
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.

Lies and fraud on both sides. According to YouGov the vast majority of Leavers had made their minds up long before the campaigning started.


Also according to YouGov only 25% think no deal will be a good outcome.

Compared with the WA they would be right. Fully in or fully out IMHO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
SamShark wrote:
bimboman wrote:
easyray wrote:
Gospel wrote:
SamShark wrote:
Are we at the stage where we - as a country - can just pretend whatever we don't like doesn't exist?

A bit like you and the referendum result? :|


Not really, more like the leavers who pretend the lies and fraud of the leave campaign never took place.



The 500,000 job losses and instant recession ?


Do you mind providing a link for that - I ask as I can't be arsed - but I just want to check that Osborn said that a leave vote would cause those things instantly, or whether leaving the EU would cause those things.

Along with the leaflet, it seems to be your stock reason why all leave lies are acceptable.



I’ve done that dozens of times. We have no idea if leave lied, we haven’t left yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 3377
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.

While I'd agree with the left and their spending sprees and the Tories and their fixing it, if you want to talk root cause, you'll quiickly get into the 2 party in power vs opposition political system. This is the problem for the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6735
message #2527204 wrote:
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair

He may be caught out by the backstabbing powerplays of his opponents if he's the decent person you suggest and is unaware of the cvnts he's up against.


Don’t get me wrong, he won’t think twice about getting involved in all that - and has done many times. These people seem to be able to separate being an utter plum in politics and real life in a way most of us couldn’t comprehend


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18257
Quote:
I’ve done that dozens of times. We have no idea if leave lied, we haven’t left yet.


I'm nod doubting you just being lazy.

I've seen some quotes that say "A vote to leave would lead to...." which could be read as immediately after "the vote" or could be read as "if we leave".

I will try to find the actual report myself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10847
Leffe wrote:
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.

While I'd agree with the left and their spending sprees and the Tories and their fixing it, if you want to talk root cause, you'll quiickly get into the 2 party in power vs opposition political system. This is the problem for the UK.

Spot on. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 2:54 pm
Posts: 3991
We're still on the austerity was necessary rather than a decision to shrink the state and has been effective are we?

How much debt came from the govt buying banks out their debt? I don't remember Labour policy deciding what banks were up to.

Yes, yes bimbo, there's been no austerity and social clubs are more expensive than the bank bail out. Got you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19323
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair

Is she under a patio??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
I like haggis wrote:
We're still on the austerity was necessary rather than a decision to shrink the state and has been effective are we?

How much debt came from the govt buying banks out their debt? I don't remember Labour policy deciding what banks were up to.

Yes, yes bimbo, there's been no austerity and social clubs are more expensive than the bank bail out. Got you.



What debt came from Government buying “banks out their debt” , I’m confused by this as I don’t know what you mean happened.

It shrank the state ? What from and too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2118
openclashXX wrote:
ManInTheBar wrote:
The Express* is claiming that dossiers on Mr Johnson’s private life and his main rival Dominic Raab are being prepared to “take them out of the race”.


This happened last time too - remember Stephen Crabb being forced to withdraw once the papers dug up the sexting scandal

You have to admire the press sometimes, they're like highly trained snipers with the ability to take out politicians at the legs and let the vultures of the British electorate devour them completely

I suspect more than a few of these failed leadership candidates will wind up with their careers virtually finished by the press coverage



Where is Max Hastings when his country needs him ... ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5505
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
happyhooker wrote:
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair

Is she under a patio??

How long's he been married? His missus might still be giving the occasional blow job...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21227
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
slick wrote:
I like haggis wrote:
slick wrote:
Thought Raab was very good on Marr earlier. Kept his temper in check and answered all the questions


I too would like to be friends with the PM.

Raab might win the "not Boris Brexiteer" so as good a chance as anyone. I don't think he has the personality though. He's too technical.

Talking politics podcast was good for this pattern - Thatcher character, Major dull, Blair character, Brown dull, Cameron character, May dull, next PM character?


I’ve been very critical of him on here but I thought he genuinely came across well in that interview.

Agree he can come across quite mechanical but I also know he went into politics with a genuine purpose to make things better and no real leadership ambitions. I guess you do quite easily get swept up in it all but, like a lot of politicians, there is a decent person under it all.

He will not be caught out having an affair


I do remember you not bigging him Up- have you seen the bbc4 brexit uncovered thing where May completely chopped his legs in Brussels? I bet he’d love to march back in there with a big shiteating grin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 3377
Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Leffe wrote:
Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?



Anyone is free to join the Conservative party.


The democratic vote in 2016 should take us out of the EU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:42 pm
Posts: 1097
guy smiley wrote:
This seems a good summary, Owen Jones speaking on Sky...

http://digg.com/2019/owen-jones-theresa-may-resignation

Quote:
Guardian columnist Owen Jones delivered a spirited response to Theresa May's tearful resignation during a segment on Sky News that has riveted the internet. "I've got less than no sympathy for her," Jones said bluntly.

"I think our media can often express far more sympathy for the powerful —in her care she will lead no doubt a comfortable and affluent life to her very end, rather than the victims of their policies, who I'm afraid have been driven to misery, insecurity and turmoil as a direct result. Let's think about those people."

Sky News host Adam Boulton was taken aback by Jones's sharp response and asked if he could speak on a human level.

Jones replied, "I have spoken on a human level. I've spoken about the humanity of those who have suffered as a consequence of her policies."


video


What a load of kak, is this what is presented as serious political analysis now?

1. He is implying that someone is only upset if they cry :lol: looking at the journalist he looks like he bursts in to tears when his decaf soy latte spills on him, so it is not surprising that he only thinks people are upset if they cry.

2. Is he now making equivalences between events at which people 'should' cry for? It's idiotic logic, are people next going to be crucified for crying when their dog/cat dies but not when a terrorist attack kills hundreds halfway around the world? Resigning as Prime Minister is a huge moment in anyone's life, with things such as your children being born or your parents dying. Of course that will affect you more emotionally than bad things happening to any group of people that you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 3377
bimboman wrote:
Leffe wrote:
Isn't the issue right now that 120K out of touch generally white older people who sre pro HB are going to determine the next PM for 70M people. And that they might take the UK out of the EU, while the future of the UK; young people, typpically want to stay in the EU.

In what way is this democracy?



Anyone is free to join the Conservative party.


The democratic vote in 2016 should take us out of the EU.

1 - :thumbup: & :roll: but mainly x(
2 - :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20127
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.


While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.



Eldanski is spending again.


What a clown.


Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2883
eldanielfire wrote:

Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Quote:
Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.




Why will that .6 of a billion be cheaper than the damage ? Show the workings on that and we can discuss it.

By all means maintain it was a false economy, you could actually show me the figures rather than your guess regarding my capacity to udnerstand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Newsome wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2883
bimboman wrote:
Newsome wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50440
Newsome wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Newsome wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.


He doesn't have a problem with what you said. It's because you blamed the Tories that's set him off.




No , I’d rather see something to back the theory rather than the guess work of a moron.


You want to see proof that sacking 20,000 coppers isn't a bad thing?



You know there’s been higher crime recently with lots more officers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5505
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
eldanielfire wrote:
bimboman wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:
Newsome wrote:
Fair enough. I think she should be crucified for sacking 20,000 police officers. Crime rates suddenly rise :roll:


Ah but ask yourself, why did she sack that many cops? Answer - to save cash.
And why did cash need to be saved ? Because Labour almost bankrupted the country.

Lefties always seem to line up to bash the tories without any acceptance of root cause and effect of any subsequent austerity policies. (Not saying you are a lefty, don’t know you)

Fwiw I agree that reducing police spending was an awful decision and she was pretty much the worst Home Secretary and then PM ever.


While she had to swing the axe, it was Osborne who made all the depts of government have to make cuts. The thing is, last election Labout claimed 10k Police officers would cost 300 million. Having 0.6 of a billion on the deficit of 150 Billion plus (at the time) is basically nothing and not worth the rise in crime and unsafer streets. In fact lower crimes rates are conductive to business attractiveness and reduce criminal costs which are potentially greater, especially in a crashed economy with fewer people in work. It was an idiotic decision from the top and IMO Cameron and Osborn desire the lions share of the blame for forcing all gov depts to do so.



Eldanski is spending again.


What a clown.


Perhaps explain how DANGEROUS having an extra 0.6 of a billion on police, which will be cheaper than the damage the rise in crime costs and well an increase in prison numbers, on a deficit of over 150 Billion is Bimboman?

It's a bad cut because it creates a false economy, where the alternative cost and cost of damage later on is bigger than maintaining the current costs. But as established that sort of thinking is well beyond your capacity to udnerstand.

What rise in crime are we talking about? Inner city knife crime?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 581 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 749a, Bing [Bot], Cullen, Farva, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], Harveys, massive_field_goal, Olo, Ted., UncleFB, Wilderbeast and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group