Theresa May

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

But one was a deliberate, unaffordable, bribe to the electorate which clearly impacted the votes of the youngest voters, resulting in a reduced majority for the Tories.

The other was a post election deal, diverting increased investment to a different part of the UK.

Not understanding or appreciating the massive difference between the two is unfortunate, to say the least.

Tut, tut, and you a Church goer too.

[gooner1]

Talking of broken manifesto promises.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/if-the-tories-...

[sidicks]

gooner1 said:

sidicks said:

But one was a deliberate, unaffordable, bribe to the electorate which clearly impacted the votes of the youngest voters, resulting in a reduced majority for the Tories.

The other was a post election deal, diverting increased investment to a different part of the UK.

Not understanding or appreciating the massive difference between the two is unfortunate, to say the least.

Tut, tut, and you a Church goer too.

Eh?

[jjlynn27]

You'd think predictability of;

• Corbyn promises money, it's all good, it's bad, un-affordable.

• May, who is so fking incompetent that she managed to make Jeremy I can't even do the tie Corbyn look electable, promises money, which is, to anyone normal, a bribe pure and simple, that's all good and proper, it's an investment.

would get old. And yet it doesn't.

How insecure do you have to be, to be so desperate to defend everything that May does?

Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 22 July 22:30

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

You'd think predictability of;

• Corbyn promises money, it's all good, it's bad, un-affordable.

• May, who is so fking incompetent that she managed to make Jeremy I can't even do the tie Corbyn look electable, promises money, which is, to anyone normal, a bribe pure and simple, that's all good and proper, it's an investment.

would get old. And yet it doesn't.

How insecure do you have to be, to be so desperate to defend everything that May does?

Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 22 July 22:30

Or, alternatively, how stupid would you have to be not to understand the numerous differences between the two scenarios...

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

You'd think predictability of;

• Corbyn promises money, it's all good, it's bad, un-affordable.

• May, who is so fking incompetent that she managed to make Jeremy I can't even do the tie Corbyn look electable, promises money, which is, to anyone normal, a bribe pure and simple, that's all good and proper, it's an investment.

would get old. And yet it doesn't.

How insecure do you have to be, to be so desperate to defend everything that May does?

Edited by jjlynn27 on Saturday 22 July 22:30

Or, alternatively, how stupid would you have to be not to understand the numerous differences between the two scenarios...

That's not 'alternatively', at all.

If the scenario was reversed, I'd bet your last public sector pension outrage, that you'd be 'oh look May wants to invest in future of the country' and 'Corbyn is paying of terrorists'.

Still funny.


ETA; be > bet

Edited by jjlynn27 on Sunday 23 July 00:07

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

That's not 'alternatively', at all.

If the scenario was reversed, I'd be your last public sector pension outrage, that you'd be 'oh look May wants to invest in future of the country' and 'Corbyn is paying of terrorists'.

Still funny.

Can someone translate this into English for me, please?

[alfie2244]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

That's not 'alternatively', at all.

If the scenario was reversed, I'd be your last public sector pension outrage, that you'd be 'oh look May wants to invest in future of the country' and 'Corbyn is paying of terrorists'.

Still funny.

Can someone translate this into English for me, please?

To be fair it isn't his 1st language.

[sidicks]

alfie2244 said:

To be fair it isn't his 1st language.

Indeed, I realise that. And to be fair what he posts is normally perfectly understandable, even if I don't agree with much of it.

But his post above is just nonsense.

[alfie2244]

sidicks said:

alfie2244 said:

To be fair it isn't his 1st language.

Indeed, I realise that. And to be fair what he posts is normally perfectly understandable, even if I don't agree with much of it.

But his post above is just nonsense.

Alcohol then

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

Indeed. And to be fair what is posts is normally understandable, even if I don't agree with much of it.

But the above is just nonsense.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Already edited. Do keep up.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

That's not 'alternatively', at all.

If the scenario was reversed, I'd bet your last public sector pension outrage, that you'd be 'oh look May wants to invest in future of the country' and 'Corbyn is paying of terrorists'.

Still funny.


ETA; be > bet

You also need to replace 'of' with 'off'.

And it still isn't an accurate claim - spending and investment are not the same. And the magnitude is entirely different.

So it's still nonsense.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Already edited. Do keep up.

It seems that it's you that need to 'keep up'.

Again, still funny.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

Again, still funny.

Only if you don't understand the massive difference in the scenarios. Which it would appear you don't.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

You also need to replace 'of' with 'off'.

Thanks. Appreciated.

sidicks said:

And it still isn't an accurate claim - spending and investment are not the same. And the magnitude is entirely different.

So it's still nonsense.

Give me a B. Give me an R. Give me an I....

It's a bribe. Plain and simple. The only reason May&Co reached into my pocket is because they need the votes.

THE
ONLY
REASON.

[768]

jjlynn27 said:

Give me a B. Give me an R. Give me an I....

It's a bribe. Plain and simple. The only reason May&Co reached into my pocket is because they need the votes.

THE
ONLY
REASON.

Welcome to politics. That's how it works.

At least you must be delighted she wasn't reaching as far in as the alternative.

[Garvin]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

You also need to replace 'of' with 'off'.

Thanks. Appreciated.

sidicks said:

And it still isn't an accurate claim - spending and investment are not the same. And the magnitude is entirely different.

So it's still nonsense.

Give me a B. Give me an R. Give me an I....

It's a bribe. Plain and simple. The only reason May&Co reached into my pocket is because they need the votes.

THE
ONLY
REASON.

But the same can be levelled at Corbyn with his pre-election 'promises'. He could have left the cancellation of student debt well alone but he chose to dangle carrots in an attempt to bribe those affected for their votes - this was the only reason. Besides which here are material differences between the two:

- Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis.

Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.

[gooner1]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Again, still funny.

Only if you don't understand the massive difference in the scenarios. Which it would appear you don't.

I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto.
The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.

[gooner1]

Garvin said:

But the same can be levelled at Corbyn with his pre-election 'promises'. He could have left the cancellation of student debt well alone but he chose to dangle carrots in an attempt to bribe those affected for their votes - this was the only reason. Besides which here are material differences between the two:

- Corbyn's 'promises' have been admitted as being totally unaffordable. He would have to have 'broken' those 'promises' if elected. May's £1Bn for NI is easily afforded.
- May did it to ensure the Conservatives could govern rather than plunge the country into a damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. [quote]

gooner1 said:

I think you mean "another" damaging election whilst Brexit is underway. An election that was repeatedly denied was going to be held btw, and was totally unnecessary.[quote]

Garvin said:

Let's be very clear, Labour would have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed so all the outrage is just fake.
- Corbyn's paying off student debts would, ironically, have been for the benefit of the few not the many and in a very personal way. May's 'bribe' is money for investment for the benefit of all in NI and on a general basis. [quote]

gooner1 said:

As fake as the denial of May's Bribe?[quote]

Garvin said:

Did May want to do a deal with the DUP, of course not but it was a necessity if the government was to continue with any confidence. Left leaning critics are only upset because they failed to get Labour elected and wanted another bite at the cherry but have been thwarted - it's irrational, emotional upset, pure and simple.

gooner1 said:

When are we going to witness some of this "confidence" from the Goverment. Even sidicks admits Tory policies are being dictated by the opposition. [quote]

Edited by gooner1 on Sunday 23 July 11:34