May Vs Corbyn live on the telly,
Discussion
I didn't watch it live only just watched the Paxo interviews this morning on the internet. Paxo was a parody of himself and really his constant interruptions achieved the opposite of what an interviewer should... very strange.
Corbyn probably produced one of his best performances ever. If he had been performing like that since day 1 of his leadership I suspect he would have gained far more credibility, as it is right now it is too little too late really.
May... wow. Has anyone transformed from 'Strong And Stable' to utterly pathetic in such a short space of time? He image as a safe pair of hands has been obliterated and assuming she wins with a more modest majority than previously expected her authority within her own party will be close to zero. I also worry if she is really the right person to be leading the Brexit talks... a combination of May, Johnson and Davis doesn't look a much more appealing the Corbyn, Thornberry and Starmer.
But being strong in TV debates doesn't necessarily carry over into votes, just ask Nick Clegg.
Corbyn probably produced one of his best performances ever. If he had been performing like that since day 1 of his leadership I suspect he would have gained far more credibility, as it is right now it is too little too late really.
May... wow. Has anyone transformed from 'Strong And Stable' to utterly pathetic in such a short space of time? He image as a safe pair of hands has been obliterated and assuming she wins with a more modest majority than previously expected her authority within her own party will be close to zero. I also worry if she is really the right person to be leading the Brexit talks... a combination of May, Johnson and Davis doesn't look a much more appealing the Corbyn, Thornberry and Starmer.
But being strong in TV debates doesn't necessarily carry over into votes, just ask Nick Clegg.
turbobloke said:
Burwood said:
footnote said:
turbobloke said:
footnote said:
So, even with a 'modest' exit fee, Brexit will double the deficit? Nice!
What will the deficit bee at the point of leaving the EU and how much will it actually cost the UK to leave?My crystal ball is out of action so use of yours via PH would be appreciated.
t up you have no point.So come on then... it's clearly not going to be nothing and it is definitely going to be something.
On that basis, give us your best guess - given that you obviously know what it won't be - in your wisdom, what are the lower and upper limits of the exit fee likely to be - ball park figures are fine.
johnxjsc1985 said:
///ajd said:
my eyes are open
ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)
if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.
she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.
to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.
everyone of your posts in condescending and arrogant.ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)
if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.
she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.
to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.
what is condescending and arrogant about observing sone nuance in what may said?
///ajd said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
The fact she can't say "yes" to no deal speaks volumes - she doesn't mean it, she desperately wants a deal, but has been persuading to play the "no deal" charade.
Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
She did say yes, at 87 minutes into the program. She said it twice, they then pan to the audience and women on the end of the row in black dress with pendant round her neck pulls a "blimey" face.Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
she then says "you have to", when asked again, and expands on that.
open your eyes and ears slasher, go look at it again.
ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)
if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.
she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.
to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.
She said yes slasher, twice. So either you are deaf, unable to process what you don't want to hear or are being deliberately deceitful.
jsf said:
///ajd said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
The fact she can't say "yes" to no deal speaks volumes - she doesn't mean it, she desperately wants a deal, but has been persuading to play the "no deal" charade.
Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
She did say yes, at 87 minutes into the program. She said it twice, they then pan to the audience and women on the end of the row in black dress with pendant round her neck pulls a "blimey" face.Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
she then says "you have to", when asked again, and expands on that.
open your eyes and ears slasher, go look at it again.
ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)
if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.
she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.
to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.
She said yes slasher, twice. So either you are deaf, unable to process what you don't want to hear or are being deliberately deceitful.
Its more 535i level, I gave you more credit.
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes", you are a case in point. I'll give her credit for that - she isn't saying it for the EU, they aren't that gullible.
Despite the bickering on here... the general consensus, in simple terms, seems to be; Corbyn gained credibility and May lost credibility. I suspect the gap between them was so large beforehand that it won't make much difference come election day. Never the less; Corbyn seems to have exceeded almost everyone's expectations.
LDN said:
Despite the bickering on here... the general consensus, in simple terms, seems to be; Corbyn gained credibility and May lost credibility. I suspect the gap between them was so large beforehand that it won't make much difference come election day. Never the less; Corbyn seems to have exceeded almost everyone's expectations.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/30/corbyn-self-destructs-on-womans-hour/The lord giveth then taketh away...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuO2DtdXvBk at 16.00 for all those than were deaf.
Corbyn on the other hand has already told the EU he will sign up to any demands they make. He said it last night. " Jeremy Corbyn said: "There's going to be a deal." "We will make sure there is a deal."
In other words we will continue to pay and be subject to FOM and the ECoJ
Corbyn on the other hand has already told the EU he will sign up to any demands they make. He said it last night. " Jeremy Corbyn said: "There's going to be a deal." "We will make sure there is a deal."
In other words we will continue to pay and be subject to FOM and the ECoJ
lenny007 said:
It was amazing to listen to the BBC give the left a hard time.....also, not having figures to hand...still...really!Tom Logan said:
hedgefinder said:
yeah, its a far better idea to continually asset strip the country every time you get into power........ has huge long term benefits doesnt it?
You mean like Saint Thatcher flogging off the family silver to buy votes?Righto...
fesuvious said:
Yes, they're going to balance the deficit and borrow, all within one term.
Maybe Mr Corbyn could find Atlantis and cure cancer while he is there.
When the global economy turned what financial position were we in? I will tell you.
In 97 Labour inherited an economy in surplus. Showing growth.
All it had to to was maintain the position and create savings. Just like responsible people do. So when hard times arrive there is a backup.
Just like every other Labour Government they spent spent spent. We were already in debt by the time recession arrived.
This lot are like Blair/Brown on steroids and delusional.
This sums it up quote nicely:Maybe Mr Corbyn could find Atlantis and cure cancer while he is there.
When the global economy turned what financial position were we in? I will tell you.
In 97 Labour inherited an economy in surplus. Showing growth.
All it had to to was maintain the position and create savings. Just like responsible people do. So when hard times arrive there is a backup.
Just like every other Labour Government they spent spent spent. We were already in debt by the time recession arrived.
This lot are like Blair/Brown on steroids and delusional.
The crazy thing is that Labour ran up those levels of debt whilst also enjoying record tax receipts over the same period (and managed to spend that too). On top of this they plundered pension schemes and ratcheted up the stealth taxes. Oh, and spunking £220bn+ in 'off-books' PFI commitments for buildings we'll never own and at 10x the price.
And that lot were the 'red Tories' - dread to think what chaos the current Labour party would wreak with the nation's finances...
Despite not coming across particularly well, May made some good points about how money is spent - not just throwing ever more at the 'problem' and then wondering why it hasn't resolved itself. A good example of this is Labour's spending on education which rocketed during their time in government but didn't show any appreciable (or correlating) increases in levels of achievement or outcomes.
Throwing (other peoples') cash at something doesn't magically fix it and a Labour government again would be economically catastrophic.
jakesmith said:
Guybrush said:
Hopefully, people are intelligent enough to look back those few years and either learn or be reminded, it's not long ago so hopefully not to much of a stretch in this information age.
They aren't and they won't. The people I know who will be voting Labour are simply voting for Corbyn as a genuine man vs May, and his lovely manifesto that will help the poor. They genuinely believe that Tories love kicking the poor etc. You can thank Social Media in part for this tidal wave of moronic ignorance
Labour have some good ideas (and some terrible ones) but asking the simple question of, "...so how are you going to pay for it?" renders the whole thing moot. Without a functioning and growing economy, there's no money to hand out.
Edited by Funk on Tuesday 30th May 11:30
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)1. You said she didn't say "yes".
2. People illustrated that she did.
3. You then said "she said "yes" look beyond that"
4. I pointed out that you'd contradicted your earlier point.
5. You then stated i proved your point.
Is that exactly what you are saying here and attempting to claim some form of "debate victory"? That you were proved to be wrong and that means you are...right??
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)1. You said she didn't say "yes".
2. People illustrated that she did.
3. You then said "she said "yes" look beyond that"
4. I pointed out that you'd contradicted your earlier point.
5. You then stated i proved your point.
Is that exactly what you are saying here and attempting to claim some form of "debate victory"? That you were proved to be wrong and that means you are...right??
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff