What is going on with the Tory leadership contest? (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
dancers lance said:
"You didn't hear what Corbyn said did you?" Of course not, because unlike you, I'm an idiot.
Click to expand...

Well he didn't come out and get behind remain unequivocally.
Same as Boris said repeatedly we don't one no deal when he has assembled a hard Brexit cabinet.
Would be more trouble than it's worth in their own.parties for either of them to nail their colours to those particular masts at the moment.
 
dutchman

dutchman

Well-Known Member
Now for the important stuff...

5 dresses to buy if you loved Carrie Symonds' sell-out Ghost one
gettyimages-1157604601.jpg


While political reporters gathered to cling onto Johnson's every line, fashion fans became fixated on Symonds' ensemble.

The former PR chief was seen making her first appearance as the girlfriend of the new prime minister, wearing a pink and red floral midi dress by Ghost.

The £120 tea dress, which was styled with a pair of nude-coloured pumps, pink lipstick and gold hoop earrings, quickly sold out in all sizes on the brand’s website.

Ghost describes the design as featuring “a high neckline with back fastening and voluminous sleeves and seam detailing at the bodice for definition”.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
Sorry you've lost me?
Click to expand...
Bojo wants to be positive & everyone else to be too. It's a nicer feeling than negative.
My point really is that question politicians on their policies & aims & the finite "where is the money going to come from" rarely gets answered.

I suspect you will happily swallow down Labour policies...but are slating Bojo's. Look more closely & without emotion, at the cost of some of Labour's policies & you'll probably be mocking & asking the same question you're asking about Bojo's. Like renationalising the rail network - c£130billion. Who is going to pay for that? ONE policy!

Many times throughout my life policies of both parties have been appealing to us, the public, until in some way or another WE have to pay for it. It presents moral dilemmas at every turn.

£1.1billion to reign the yobs & baddies in, protecting us law-abiding citizens will be money well spent in many people's eyes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Bojo wants to be positive & everyone else to be too. It's a nicer feeling than negative.
My point really is that question politicians on their policies & aims & the finite "where is the money going to come from" rarely gets answered.

I suspect you will happily swallow down Labour policies...but are slating Bojo's. Look more closely & without emotion, at the cost of some of Labour's policies & you'll probably be mocking & asking the same question you're asking about Bojo's. Like renationalising the rail network - c£130billion. Who is going to pay for that? ONE policy!

Many times throughout my life policies of both parties have been appealing to us, the public, until in some way or another WE have to pay for it. It presents moral dilemmas at every turn.

£1.1billion to reign the yobs & baddies in, protecting us law-abiding citizens will be money well spent in many people's eyes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning his policies I'm questioning how he's going to pay for them. He cannot pay for them with positivity no matter how many times everyone repeats the word.
He is the incumbent PM, whataboutery about Labour is irrelevant, and you are making yourself look foolish going on about policies in a Labour manifesto for an election they lost while not questioning a spending list as long as your arm announced by Boris yesterday's .
Johnson is in office and he's announced what looks like a spending spree.
Even more sensible Tory supporters are questioning how it's going to be paid for, especially when we don't know how we will be leaving the EU so can't put an accurate value on what that is going to cost us.

He looks as though he's pressing ahead with the extra police which is good but again, he doesnt say where the funds ars coming from but has already reneged on the assurances given to EU citizens.
But I'm sure you'll try and divert away from that by going on about something Corbyn did.
 
C

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
Well he didn't come out and get behind remain unequivocally.
Same as Boris said repeatedly we don't one no deal when he has assembled a hard Brexit cabinet.
Would be more trouble than it's worth in their own.parties for either of them to nail their colours to those particular masts at the moment.
Click to expand...
He’ll have to in an election though Clint.

It’s a bizarre time in politics. If labour had backed Mays deal then Lib Dem’s and Brexit Party wouldn’t be picking up Labour voters from both sides of the argument. The withdrawal agreement pretty much gave labour everything they wanted apart from a lack of clarity over the future relationship, which we all know was to be negotiated and agreed during the transition period. The backstop would’ve given them the comfort of remaining in a customs union until a trade agreement/deal was reached ie ‘protecting jobs’ (we’ll ignore the fact they switched from campaigning to leave the customs union/single market at last election) . Corbyn rejected this gambling on forcing an election.

I hated Corbyns intentional ambiguity and politicising of Brexit. It’s far too important. However, I honestly believed it was working for him....until the European elections. It may now be coming back to haunt him.

Ps just to clarify, the continued behaviour/stance of the ERG and the staunch Remainers (at all costs) have pissed me off as much as Corbyn !
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I'm not questioning his policies I'm questioning how he's going to pay for them. He cannot pay for them with positivity no matter how many times everyone repeats the word.
He is the incumbent PM, whataboutery about Labour is irrelevant, and you are making yourself look foolish going on about policies in a Labour manifesto for an election they lost while not questioning a spending list as long as your arm announced by Boris yesterday's .
Johnson is in office and he's announced what looks like a spending spree.
Even more sensible Tory supporters are questioning how it's going to be paid for, especially when we don't know how we will be leaving the EU so can't put an accurate value on what that is going to cost us.

He looks as though he's pressing ahead with the extra police which is good but again, he doesnt say where the funds ars coming from but has already reneged on the assurances given to EU citizens.
But I'm sure you'll try and divert away from that by going on about something Corbyn did.
Click to expand...

Yes...I'm the fool because I cannot see the difference between your questioning where the money for his policies is coming from & your questioning his policies.
Maybe that says more about you? No matter how you dress it up - you're basically making an attempt at Tory-bashing again.

The failed (affordable???) railway renationalisation policy is still alive & kicking btw... Labour 'could nationalise rail in five years'

Now I think that, & indeed a lot of other Labour policies would be good things myself...but just like Bojo has yet to do they fail to describe where the money is coming from in detail. And that is just one policy...& the cost is expected to be 10x Bojo's police policy.

Perpective & weighing up the alternatives take time. Being less partisan is a good start point for that.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Johnson is of course implying we will potentially have £39 billion that is no longer going to the the EU post October
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Yes...I'm the fool because I cannot see the difference between your questioning where the money for his policies is coming from & your questioning his policies.
Maybe that says more about you? No matter how you dress it up - you're basically making an attempt at Tory-bashing again.

The failed (affordable???) railway renationalisation policy is still alive & kicking btw... Labour 'could nationalise rail in five years'

Now I think that, & indeed a lot of other Labour policies would be good things myself...but just like Bojo has yet to do they fail to describe where the money is coming from in detail. And that is just one policy...& the cost is expected to be 10x Bojo's police policy.

Perpective & weighing up the alternatives take time. Being less partisan is a good start point for that.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

On this thread I said if he implements half of what he says he will I'll take my hat off to him- that's Tory bashing in your world?
You're too negative Baz!

As for renationalisation, it was done to death on another thread but it's a bit more of a complex issue than the cost.
You do realise that at times the east coast franchise has been bought back in to state ownership under this government?
What that effectively means is we've nationalised the losses but let the private sector keep the profit, surely you can see the flaw there?

My big concern regarding renationalising isn't the initial cost, it's can the government operate at a profit on franchises the private sector couldn't. But really, why we're debating something from a manifesto that won't be implemented is mystifying, but that's the bazza way!
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
CCFCSteve said:
He’ll have to in an election though Clint.

It’s a bizarre time in politics. If labour had backed Mays deal then Lib Dem’s and Brexit Party wouldn’t be picking up Labour voters from both sides of the argument. The withdrawal agreement pretty much gave labour everything they wanted apart from a lack of clarity over the future relationship, which we all know was to be negotiated and agreed during the transition period. The backstop would’ve given them the comfort of remaining in a customs union until a trade agreement/deal was reached ie ‘protecting jobs’ (we’ll ignore the fact they switched from campaigning to leave the customs union/single market at last election) . Corbyn rejected this gambling on forcing an election.

I hated Corbyns intentional ambiguity and politicising of Brexit. It’s far too important. However, I honestly believed it was working for him....until the European elections. It may now be coming back to haunt him.

Ps just to clarify, the continued behaviour/stance of the ERG and the staunch Remainers (at all costs) have pissed me off as much as Corbyn !
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I understand the ambiguity, not just from Corbyn but others.
Boris the other day continually mentioned that he wanted a deal but was prepared for no deal just to try and placate both sides of his party.
If they nail their colours firmly to a particular Brexit mast they risk all out civil war in their respective parties. They are probably only delaying the inevitable splits anyway.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
On this thread I said if he implements half of what he says he will I'll take my hat off to him- that's Tory bashing in your world?
You're too negative Baz!

As for renationalisation, it was done to death on another thread but it's a bit more of a complex issue than the cost.
You do realise that at times the east coast franchise has been bought back in to state ownership under this government?
What that effectively means is we've nationalised the losses but let the private sector keep the profit, surely you can see the flaw there?

My big concern regarding renationalising isn't the initial cost, it's can the government operate at a profit on franchises the private sector couldn't. But really, why we're debating something from a manifesto that won't be implemented is mystifying, but that's the bazza way!
Click to expand...
Said he who bought Kevin Keegan into the discussion? Or am I being foolish again?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I see your point, but I understand the ambiguity, not just from Corbyn but others.
Boris the other day continually mentioned that he wanted a deal but was prepared for no deal just to try and placate both sides of his party.
If they nail their colours firmly to a particular Brexit mast they risk all out civil war in their respective parties. They are probably only delaying the inevitable splits anyway.
Click to expand...

Labour should have always tried to push the soft Brexit line. A clear distinction between where the Tories are now. Sadly the party has been dragged into Remain territory because of the centrists desire to maintain the status quo - and the current love in for the duplicitous Lib Dems.

I was far happier with Corbyn’s ambiguity than them drifting towards all out remain.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Bojo wants to be positive & everyone else to be too. It's a nicer feeling than negative.
My point really is that question politicians on their policies & aims & the finite "where is the money going to come from" rarely gets answered.

I suspect you will happily swallow down Labour policies...but are slating Bojo's. Look more closely & without emotion, at the cost of some of Labour's policies & you'll probably be mocking & asking the same question you're asking about Bojo's. Like renationalising the rail network - c£130billion. Who is going to pay for that? ONE policy!

Many times throughout my life policies of both parties have been appealing to us, the public, until in some way or another WE have to pay for it. It presents moral dilemmas at every turn.

£1.1billion to reign the yobs & baddies in, protecting us law-abiding citizens will be money well spent in many people's eyes.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Positivity is the last hiding place of idiots with no plan. Blair could be positive. Cameron could be positive. They had clear plans. Boris is using it as a mask for his lack of understanding. There’s a reason he hid from the press for his entire campaign
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Positivity is the last hiding place of idiots with no plan. Blair could be positive. Cameron could be positive. They had clear plans. Boris is using it as a mask for his lack of understanding. There’s a reason he hid from the press for his entire campaign
Click to expand...

He didn't exactly hide did he? He just didn't pander to their wish for him to speak with them until he wanted to...or was allowed to by him team as they know his clumsy rhetoric would give his opponents ammunition. Plus, I'm sure I saw him on TV a couple of times in head to heads.

As I said before - the press weren't casting or influencing the vote, so why speak to them? While the others were doing so - he was canvassing MPs support.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
He didn't exactly hide did he? He just didn't pander to their wish for him to speak with them until he wanted to...or was allowed to by him team as they know his clumsy rhetoric would give his opponents ammunition. Plus, I'm sure I saw him on TV a couple of times in head to heads.

As I said before - the press weren't casting or influencing the vote, so why speak to them? While the others were doing so - he was canvassing MPs support.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Because a free press is part of a liberal democracy. If you want to run the country you should put yourself up for scrutiny.

Why do these far right fucks always want secrecy? Trumps tax returns, Banks and Farages donations. Yaxley-Lennon’s financing. Johnsons everything.

There’s a tradition and an expectation around what a potential PM will put themselves up for that Johnson completely ignored because he knew he’d look bad.

Can’t believe people are gullible enough to read that as “sticking it to the press”. The press are us ya eejit. They’re our eyes and ears as a group. The fact people see them as the enemy is downright scary. They may not be perfect, but they’re a damn sight better than randoms on YouTube and anonymous blogs.
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Because a free press is part of a liberal democracy. If you want to run the country you should put yourself up for scrutiny.

Why do these far right fucks always want secrecy? Trumps tax returns, Banks and Farages donations. Yaxley-Lennon’s financing. Johnsons everything.

There’s a tradition and an expectation around what a potential PM will put themselves up for that Johnson completely ignored because he knew he’d look bad.

Can’t believe people are gullible enough to read that as “sticking it to the press”. The press are us ya eejit. They’re our eyes and ears as a group. The fact people see them as the enemy is downright scary. They may not be perfect, but they’re a damn sight better than randoms on YouTube and anonymous blogs.
Click to expand...

Nobody is under obligation to speak to the press. Nobody is beyond press scrutiny. Bojo was, is & will continue to be scrutinised.

He was under no obligation to talk to the press during any part of the leadership campaign. Some see that as hiding if he chooses to bide his time...I call it focused on the job in hand given I believe he was canvassing support amongst those casting votes.

He was a potential PM...where & how realistically could he possibly hide?

As for your slant on 'far-right fucks'...even the moderate right/left are just as bad if delved into.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
SkyblueBazza said:
Nobody is under obligation to speak to the press. Nobody is beyond press scrutiny. Bojo was, is & will continue to be scrutinised.

He was under no obligation to talk to the press during any part of the leadership campaign. Some see that as hiding if he chooses to bide his time...I call it focused on the job in hand given I believe he was canvassing support amongst those casting votes.

He was a potential PM...where & how realistically could he possibly hide?

As for your slant on 'far-right fucks'...even the moderate right/left are just as bad if delved into.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So do you believe that Corbyn is also focusing on strategy and policy? Or is he just hiding and being indecisive?
 
G

Grappa

Well-Known Member
The partisanship that allows us to unquestionably support Cov is the same partisanship that politicians take advantage of. They know we are gullible, open to biases. We decide who we are going to support, and the other side are WRONG. End of. We defend the undefendable. For the cause.
I am as guilty of this as anyone.
The language around political discussion is more charged than I've ever known. It's all 'leftards', 'fascists', 'snowflakes' and 'nazis'. Them and us. Division.
Most people are good, kind and generous.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this but maybe we should all take a step back and think about what is best for all of us rather than...
No actually fuck that you bunch of fascists.
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Johnson is of course implying we will potentially have £39 billion that is no longer going to the the EU post October
Click to expand...
That’s going to be really help make the UK look like a trustworthy trading partner to others around the world
 
S

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
So do you believe that Corbyn is also focusing on strategy and policy? Or is he just hiding and being indecisive?
Click to expand...
Strange question...& not sure why you ask it?

Corbyn I believe is not hiding from press. Likely doing what his advisors tell him the same as Boris did.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
That’s going to be really help make the UK look like a trustworthy trading partner to others around the world
Click to expand...

It will make absolutely no difference to any other country who wants to trade with us.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
Experts with far more experience than you have said otherwise.
Click to expand...

Really? Who, where?

The reality is countries trade with those with appalling human rights abuse. Countries will such see it as a dispute - it should have been stated from the start that no deal is no payment. I’m sure Italy can cover some of the shortfall - be about £8 billion won’t it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top