Discussion
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.
Obviously the Tory's policies have to be influenced to some extent by what the opposition are promising - it's no point having the best strategy if you aren't in power to implement it.
But this was explained above and you didn't understand it then either.
gooner1 said:
I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto.
The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
Speak of 'desperate' parties - has Corbyn finally admitted he lost the election yet or is he 'still ready to govern'?The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
https://www.rt.com/uk/396196-corbyn-barnier-brexit...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/jeremy-corbyn-says-w...
etc
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto.
The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
Speak of 'desperate' parties - has Corbyn finally admitted he lost the election yet or is he 'still ready to govern'?The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
Why, are you confused as to who won or lost? I don't remember Corbyn claiming to have
won the election, could you point me to where he claims this.
https://www.rt.com/uk/396196-corbyn-barnier-brexit...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/jeremy-corbyn-says-w...
etc
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto.
The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
Speak of 'desperate' parties - has Corbyn finally admitted he lost the election yet or is he 'still ready to govern'?The other was a Bribe to keep a desperate party in power.
https://www.rt.com/uk/396196-corbyn-barnier-brexit...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/jeremy-corbyn-says-w...
etc
gooner1 said:
Why, are you confused as to who won or lost?
I'm not. The Labour and their supporters do appear to be very confused though!gooner1 said:
I don't remember Corbyn claiming to have won the election, could you point me to where he claims this.
If only you'd actually bothered to look at the links provided...Metro said:
‘I think it’s pretty clear who won this election,’ he said at Labour’s headquarters in central London.
‘We are ready to do everything we can to put our programme into operation.
There isn’t a parliamentary majority for anybody at the present time, the party that has lost in this election is the Conservative Party, the arguments the Conservative Party put forward in this election have lost.
HTH‘We are ready to do everything we can to put our programme into operation.
There isn’t a parliamentary majority for anybody at the present time, the party that has lost in this election is the Conservative Party, the arguments the Conservative Party put forward in this election have lost.
Remind me, which is the 'desperate' party?
Cold said:
And there was me thinking that all of their proposals were 'costed'...sidicks said:
Cold said:
And there was me thinking that all of their proposals were 'costed'...Iirc, some tory manifesto promises didn't even make it to election time.
gooner1 said:
The proposals in the manifesto were, show me where in the manifesto writing off student debt appears.
Have you changed your opinion again?It was only a few posts ago you were claiming:
gooner1 said:
I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto
So now it wasn't part of the manifesto, just a key talking point in every interview immediately prior to the election...?Cold said:
It's true, he didn't commit to anything apart from saying he would "deal with it" during an interview with NME, an interview that he knew would have a large following amongst the younger voters. To anyone with a shed load of student debt this would appear, as he well knew, like a Labour policy to their huge benefit. It was either total incompetence, as it was clearly never affordable, or just disingenuous manipulation by a sleazy conman.The protestations by him now that he never committed to anything are just downright deceitful. He committed to "deal with it" and has now walked away from "dealing with it" - an admission that he lied if ever I heard one.
Garvin said:
It's true, he didn't commit to anything apart from saying he would "deal with it" during an interview with NME, an interview that he knew would have a large following amongst the younger voters. To anyone with a shed load of student debt this would appear, as he well knew, like a Labour policy to their huge benefit. It was either total incompetence, as it was clearly never affordable, or just disingenuous manipulation by a sleazy conman.
The protestations by him now that he never committed to anything are just downright deceitful. He committed to "deal with it" and has now walked away from "dealing with it" - an admission that he lied if ever I heard one.
This is what I meant earlier when I said that he clever with the way he lies/manipulates.The protestations by him now that he never committed to anything are just downright deceitful. He committed to "deal with it" and has now walked away from "dealing with it" - an admission that he lied if ever I heard one.
Stuff like saying they would "look in to it" etc. Yes, I'm sure you will, then do like he's done now and say it's not affordable.
I'm amazed so many people are taken in by him and can't see through the way he speaks and what he speaks about. Most of his lies aren't outright, that would be silly, it's just deceitful stuff like the above.
For someone who tries to trade on an image of not being like other politicians, he's doing a pretty poor job, yet people are still lapping it up.
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
The proposals in the manifesto were, show me where in the manifesto writing off student debt appears.
Have you changed your opinion again?It was only a few posts ago you were claiming:
gooner1 said:
I understand the difference one was part of a manifesto
So now it wasn't part of the manifesto, just a key talking point in every interview immediately prior to the election...?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. 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.
Yes, same can be said of Corbyn too. Nice bit of 'oh mom look, they are doing it too'. If Corbyn was proposing to spend extra £1bn in NI, you wouldn't be looking to justify it as you are doing it with May, nor would you call it easily affordable. - 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.
It's not left / right. It's about desperation of some to justify whatever May is doing.
She bribed DUP to stay in power, however you choose to dress that up.
sidicks said:
gooner1 said:
The pledge to abolish Student fees was part of the manifesto, writing off student debt was not.
And yet the abolition of student debt was exactly what we were talking about at the time.Both the abolition of student fees as appeared in Labour's manifesto and the accusation
that Corbyn said he would get rid of student debt, which isn't in Labour's manifesto and ergo was not costed, were under discussion. Come back when you are sober, my dear old thing.
gooner1 said:
I think you need to lay off the communion wine sid his s
Keep going with the snide personal remarks if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't make you correct.gooner1 said:
Both the abolition of student fees as appeared in Labour's manifesto and the accusation
that Corbyn said he would get rid of student debt, which isn't in Labour's manifesto and ergo was not costed, were under discussion. Come back when you are sober, my dear old thing.
We were discussing the 'hundreds of billions' of unfunded promises to the young people, referencing the promise to pay off student debts.that Corbyn said he would get rid of student debt, which isn't in Labour's manifesto and ergo was not costed, were under discussion. Come back when you are sober, my dear old thing.
(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 July 20:23
sidicks said:
We were discussing the 'hundreds of billions' of unfunded promises to the young people, referencing the promise to pay off student debts.
(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 July 20:23
sidicks said:
We were discussing the 'hundreds of billions' of unfunded promises to the young people, referencing the promise to pay off student debts.
(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
Actually. Sidicks, if you care to look at this Topics title, it was originally about TM, but like(Stop trying to score (personal) points (and failing) and actually respond on the topic under discussion).
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 23 July 20:23
most debates/discussions it is an ever evolving thing.
Now as much as you may not like it, and however much it upsets you, you do not get to set the agenda of what is discussed, or not, here.
You yourself have responded to remarks about the DUP bribe and the abolition of student fees in the last few pages alone of this thread, , so please, now more dictating what this thread is or isn't about.
As for snide remarks, I'd have more respect with that comment if you wasn't so quick
to make disparaging remarks about other people yourself. Jlynns spelling for example, or your assumption that anyone that doesn't share your view must be stupid.
Practice what you preach mate, no pun intended.
gooner1 said:
Actually. Sidicks, if you care to look at this Topics title, it was originally about TM, but like
most debates/discussions it is an ever evolving thing.
Now as much as you may not like it, and however much it upsets you, you do not get to set the agenda of what is discussed, or not, here.
You yourself have responded to remarks about the DUP bribe and the abolition of student fees in the last few pages alone of this thread, , so please, now more dictating what this thread is or isn't about.
You fail to understand the difference between what was being discussed and what is allowed to be discussed. At no point have I sought to determine the latter.most debates/discussions it is an ever evolving thing.
Now as much as you may not like it, and however much it upsets you, you do not get to set the agenda of what is discussed, or not, here.
You yourself have responded to remarks about the DUP bribe and the abolition of student fees in the last few pages alone of this thread, , so please, now more dictating what this thread is or isn't about.
gooner1 said:
As for snide remarks, I'd have more respect with that comment if you wasn't so quick
to make disparaging remarks about other people yourself. Jlynns spelling for example, or your assumption that anyone that doesn't share your view must be stupid.
Practice what you preach mate, no pun intended.
I've said no such thing. But plenty of people appear to be ignorant about some of the topics they post on. That doesn't mean that they are stupid. You do understand the difference??to make disparaging remarks about other people yourself. Jlynns spelling for example, or your assumption that anyone that doesn't share your view must be stupid.
Practice what you preach mate, no pun intended.
Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 06:41
Both things happen all the time in politics.
1bn is easier to brush under the carpet than 100bn would have been. But that's jut how it goes.
Fortunately not enough of the electorate fell for the 100bn version.
When was the last time a govt of any colour was elected without such shenanigans? Or did something that wasn't in its manifesto?
Fortunately if they take the piss too much the maximum they will be there for is 5yrs.
1bn is easier to brush under the carpet than 100bn would have been. But that's jut how it goes.
Fortunately not enough of the electorate fell for the 100bn version.
When was the last time a govt of any colour was elected without such shenanigans? Or did something that wasn't in its manifesto?
Fortunately if they take the piss too much the maximum they will be there for is 5yrs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff