FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Does anybody think Johnson isn't a liar or isn't corrupt?
Does anybody think Johnson isn't a liar or isn't corrupt?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't accuse Johnson of lying or being corrupt. Often his supporters just come back with platitudes like "all politicians are liars and corrupt" or "all politicians are the same" (like that, even if true, makes it OK). Far better to point out inconsistencies in the words against the actions and leave others to decide if he is a liar, corrupt or just incompetent." At this point, I really am curious if anybody truly thinks he's honest and/or not corrupt. Or if even his defenders know he is, but they support him regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't accuse Johnson of lying or being corrupt. Often his supporters just come back with platitudes like "all politicians are liars and corrupt" or "all politicians are the same" (like that, even if true, makes it OK). Far better to point out inconsistencies in the words against the actions and leave others to decide if he is a liar, corrupt or just incompetent. At this point, I really am curious if anybody truly thinks he's honest and/or not corrupt. Or if even his defenders know he is, but they support him regardless." Well I personally don't believe he's honest but don't know whether he's actually corrupt. Even on the honesty thing, I can't see into his soul. He may actually believe what he says when he says it. What I can say for sure is what he says will happen as a result of what he does does not match what actually happens. That could be because he's dishonest or it could be because he's incompetent - I really couldn't say which for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't accuse Johnson of lying or being corrupt. Often his supporters just come back with platitudes like "all politicians are liars and corrupt" or "all politicians are the same" (like that, even if true, makes it OK). Far better to point out inconsistencies in the words against the actions and leave others to decide if he is a liar, corrupt or just incompetent. At this point, I really am curious if anybody truly thinks he's honest and/or not corrupt. Or if even his defenders know he is, but they support him regardless. Well I personally don't believe he's honest but don't know whether he's actually corrupt. Even on the honesty thing, I can't see into his soul. He may actually believe what he says when he says it. What I can say for sure is what he says will happen as a result of what he does does not match what actually happens. That could be because he's dishonest or it could be because he's incompetent - I really couldn't say which for sure." There are ample examples of his lying and corruption. If you want a very clear example of Johnson flat out lying on camera, take the incident where he bumped into an angry member of the public during a hospital visit. The angry person said Johnson was just there for publicity. Johnson said there was no press there. On camera. While being filmed. And the member of the public simply pointed to the press people with cameras and asked who they were. Johnson flat out lies all the time. He was actually sacked from previous jobs for lying too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. I've seen many mental gymnastics to excuse Johnson's behaviour. But do even his defenders think he isn't a liar? Or that he isn't corrupt? Or do such people defend him, even while accepting he is both of those things? (The thing that brought this question to mind is the fact he's on yet another holiday. This time apparently staying in a fancy property owned by Goldsmith. So freebie holiday, from the sounds of it. And, worse, a freebie holiday from a guy Johnson bunged into the House of Lords and gave a ministerial job to.)" Number 10 are refusing to answer how he got to the holiday too so we can maybe assume that’s a private jet handed over too. Otherwise why not say RAF or commercial flight? I understand the security so details should be avoided but it’s the same old sleaze from the most compulsive liar ever to hold the office. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. I've seen many mental gymnastics to excuse Johnson's behaviour. But do even his defenders think he isn't a liar? Or that he isn't corrupt? Or do such people defend him, even while accepting he is both of those things? (The thing that brought this question to mind is the fact he's on yet another holiday. This time apparently staying in a fancy property owned by Goldsmith. So freebie holiday, from the sounds of it. And, worse, a freebie holiday from a guy Johnson bunged into the House of Lords and gave a ministerial job to.) Number 10 are refusing to answer how he got to the holiday too so we can maybe assume that’s a private jet handed over too. Otherwise why not say RAF or commercial flight? I understand the security so details should be avoided but it’s the same old sleaze from the most compulsive liar ever to hold the office. " I for one am shocked. (Well... maybe not.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lies, corruption and cronyism aren't anything new in politics. Look around the globe. Power always corrupts regardless of political hue. " Oh that's ok then... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lies, corruption and cronyism aren't anything new in politics. Look around the globe. Power always corrupts regardless of political hue. Oh that's ok then..." It's the standard response from people who can't or won't defend figures like Johnson. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. I've seen many mental gymnastics to excuse Johnson's behaviour. But do even his defenders think he isn't a liar? Or that he isn't corrupt? Or do such people defend him, even while accepting he is both of those things? (The thing that brought this question to mind is the fact he's on yet another holiday. This time apparently staying in a fancy property owned by Goldsmith. So freebie holiday, from the sounds of it. And, worse, a freebie holiday from a guy Johnson bunged into the House of Lords and gave a ministerial job to.)" So please tell us a politician that you believe to be honourable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bending like Yuri Gellar maybe but splitting the spoon and posting them to different countries in Boris case. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar." No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question." It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. " It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest." There are degrees. Johnson has proved to be thoroughly untrustworthy. Time and time again. He was even sacked for lying twice. And the pandemic was a time when we needed clear and open messaging from a leader people would trust. Not a good time to have the likes of Johnson in charge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest." When it comes to people in elected positions, we have a right to expect them to be honest. If we simply expect everyone to lie and be deceitful, what therefore is the point of our so called democracy? Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. " Are you lying about it not being bait, it looks like bait and smells like bait and... its bait | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest. When it comes to people in elected positions, we have a right to expect them to be honest. If we simply expect everyone to lie and be deceitful, what therefore is the point of our so called democracy? Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism. " You're right no politicians lied before brexit, no fabbers lied before brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest. When it comes to people in elected positions, we have a right to expect them to be honest. If we simply expect everyone to lie and be deceitful, what therefore is the point of our so called democracy? Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism. You're right no politicians lied before brexit, no fabbers lied before brexit "So you fall into the "ah they all lie anyway" category. Thank you for ticking that box. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest." But most aren’t also truly corrupt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest. When it comes to people in elected positions, we have a right to expect them to be honest. If we simply expect everyone to lie and be deceitful, what therefore is the point of our so called democracy? Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism. You're right no politicians lied before brexit, no fabbers lied before brexit "The difference is the dial for what is acceptable and excusable has been shifted by Brexit and the campaigning (on both sides). Look back at politicians who have been caught out in the past (for lying for corruption) and they have been forced to resign. However, that seems to have fallen by the wayside now. Boris Johnson is insidious. He plays the fool (to get everyone to like him like he did at school) but is actually intelligent and devious. He and his chums have taken the people of this country for a ride and massively enriched themselves in the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. It is a baited question. Nobody is truly honest. When it comes to people in elected positions, we have a right to expect them to be honest. If we simply expect everyone to lie and be deceitful, what therefore is the point of our so called democracy? Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism. You're right no politicians lied before brexit, no fabbers lied before brexit
So you fall into the "ah they all lie anyway" category. Thank you for ticking that box."you want the truth? you cant handle the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... the impression I'm getting is that everybody simply thinks Johnson is a liar. No, I think it's just that most people aren't stupid enough to be drawn into such a simplistic and baited question. It's not bait. I'm really curious if anybody at this point actually thinks he's honest. Are you lying about it not being bait, it looks like bait and smells like bait and... its bait " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest." I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? " https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2021/apr/19/calls-for-an-inquiry-into-boris-johnsons-failure-to-be-honest-video | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? " Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media!" The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time?" The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time"." The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? " It's a forum, that's what happens. Or else why did you impose your demand for an answer on behalf of the person that posed the question? If you want a conversation with an individual, message them individually would be my advice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? It's a forum, that's what happens. Or else why did you impose your demand for an answer on behalf of the person that posed the question? If you want a conversation with an individual, message them individually would be my advice." I asked a question, I didn't provide an answer to a question I wasn't asked. There's the difference, it was in the detail. Now, if that poster chooses to answer, all they'll do is loosely copy what you've said, which is what you've done from "all over the internet". Original thoughts and ideas are welcome - rehashing old and often inaccurate information is just lazy. But thanks anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. " Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? It's a forum, that's what happens. Or else why did you impose your demand for an answer on behalf of the person that posed the question? If you want a conversation with an individual, message them individually would be my advice. I asked a question, I didn't provide an answer to a question I wasn't asked. There's the difference, it was in the detail. Now, if that poster chooses to answer, all they'll do is loosely copy what you've said, which is what you've done from "all over the internet". Original thoughts and ideas are welcome - rehashing old and often inaccurate information is just lazy. But thanks anyway
"Why would you need new original answers, when the rehashed ones are still relevant. They are all over the Internet for a reason, because many people are taking this "yes it's easy with hindsight" approach (i.e. trying to excuse this government's performance). Therefore, many others are showing that there was plenty of information to make better decisions at the time. If you would like to actually point out the inaccuracies we can address those. Rather than suggesting the answer is wrong, but not being specific about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? It's a forum, that's what happens. Or else why did you impose your demand for an answer on behalf of the person that posed the question? If you want a conversation with an individual, message them individually would be my advice. I asked a question, I didn't provide an answer to a question I wasn't asked. There's the difference, it was in the detail. Now, if that poster chooses to answer, all they'll do is loosely copy what you've said, which is what you've done from "all over the internet". Original thoughts and ideas are welcome - rehashing old and often inaccurate information is just lazy. But thanks anyway
Why would you need new original answers, when the rehashed ones are still relevant. They are all over the Internet for a reason, because many people are taking this "yes it's easy with hindsight" approach (i.e. trying to excuse this government's performance). Therefore, many others are showing that there was plenty of information to make better decisions at the time.
If you would like to actually point out the inaccuracies we can address those. Rather than suggesting the answer is wrong, but not being specific about it.
"I'll just wait for the poster I actually asked to answer thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread." No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. " Last I checked Blair isn't running the country, BoZo is. His behaviour is completely unacceptable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. Last I checked Blair isn't running the country, BoZo is. His behaviour is completely unacceptable." when blair a labour prime minister was running the country did he lie, yes or no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. Last I checked Blair isn't running the country, BoZo is. His behaviour is completely unacceptable. when blair a labour prime minister was running the country did he lie, yes or no?" oh did lie lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Satire right? Hard to tell on social media! The last question is perfectly valid, but you choose to respond by questioning whether it's satirical and not actually answering the question. This is my first foray in to the politics forum and all I see are loaded question posts designed to deride either Tory voters, Brexit voters or both, but with no solid alternative suggestions that could have been made at the time, rather than several months later with a whole load of hindsight. A poster above has said "Brexit has impacted our democracy in a very negative way because it has enabled lying, exaggeration and tribalism". It's blindingly obvious where these traits originate, and it sure ain't from Tories or Brexit voters. The question remains unanswered - what would you have done differently, with only the information available at the time? The answer to that question is all over the Internet. There were many voices, including in Parliament, calling for earlier lockdowns, both initially and in the autumn after all we had learned in the spring (so you can't even claim the hindsight clause there). There were also many pointing out to the Government that the virus was airborne, but they still did not bring in mandatory wearing of masks. A working test, trace AND ISOLATE, scheme should also have happened long before we even had a working test and trace system. I think most over governments of recent times, even Tory ones, would not have lined the pockets of their mates in quite the same way. There was plenty of information available, including the data from the pandemic exercise run just a couple of years before the real thing. There was also the example of other countries where the virus hit first, particularly those in the far east with previous SARS experience. But all of this was ignored, with Johnson not even bothering with the COBRA meetings dealing with the crisis. Yes, I think things could certainly have been done better with "only the information known at the time". The question wasn't put to you, it was put to the poster I quoted. Why did you answer their question? Do you believe they're not capable of answering, if so, why? It's a forum, that's what happens. Or else why did you impose your demand for an answer on behalf of the person that posed the question? If you want a conversation with an individual, message them individually would be my advice. I asked a question, I didn't provide an answer to a question I wasn't asked. There's the difference, it was in the detail. Now, if that poster chooses to answer, all they'll do is loosely copy what you've said, which is what you've done from "all over the internet". Original thoughts and ideas are welcome - rehashing old and often inaccurate information is just lazy. But thanks anyway
Why would you need new original answers, when the rehashed ones are still relevant. They are all over the Internet for a reason, because many people are taking this "yes it's easy with hindsight" approach (i.e. trying to excuse this government's performance). Therefore, many others are showing that there was plenty of information to make better decisions at the time.
If you would like to actually point out the inaccuracies we can address those. Rather than suggesting the answer is wrong, but not being specific about it.
I'll just wait for the poster I actually asked to answer thanks."Well I’m back, jeez shit hits the fan when you don’t spend every waking moment on a forum on a swinger site. 1. I really couldn’t determine if that was satire because it certainly read like satire in terms if TOV. As such I didn’t see a valid reason to answer the question because I assumed it was rhetorical. 2. However, for the record I think a baboon could have done a better job than Boris Johnson. In all seriousness 99% of the other MPs of ANY party could have done a better job. 3. This isn’t particularly an anti-tory position because I honestly do not believe you can call this bunch of proto-fascists conservatives. Thatcher would be embarrassed to have them in her party. The current Cabinet led by the clown jester are a bunch of opportunistic, self serving, disaster capitalists who have overseen the greatest peacetime death rate in history AND the greatest transfer of state assets (ie our tax money) into private hands in history. 4. I couldn’t stand Jeremy Corbyn (he and Momentum made Labour unelectable) but I have absolutely no doubt that a Govt led by him would have had more compassion for human life and less arrogance to ignore advice. The other poster did raise some valid points so I have no need to repeat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. Last I checked Blair isn't running the country, BoZo is. His behaviour is completely unacceptable. when blair a labour prime minister was running the country did he lie, yes or no?oh did lie lol " I believe the Chilcott report found that he did not lie, he blurred the lines between what he knew and what he believed...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no?" No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. Not quite grasping what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that it's ok for Johnson to lie because of "circumstances", or that he hasn't lied? The OPs question was very simple and straight forward. In essence are you willing to recognise Johnson is a liar or not? A little further up in this thread is a link to a video I posted. Watch it, then come back and actually answer the OPs question, or not, your choice. But then don't complain about how other people have approached the thread. No im saying that the op is suggsting certain behaviour is unacceptable, hitting people is unacceptable yes or no? Yet fury was hitting someone on national tv....wtf.. The op question is bait lol did Blair lie? Did bush lie? Does Johnson shit? OMG disgusting they all shit ffs lol I accept that in the right circumstances certain behaviour is acceptable, and I am saying the voters are smart enough to judge if the circumstances warrant that behaviour. Last I checked Blair isn't running the country, BoZo is. His behaviour is completely unacceptable. when blair a labour prime minister was running the country did he lie, yes or no?oh did lie lol I believe the Chilcott report found that he did not lie, he blurred the lines between what he knew and what he believed... "yeah boris does a lot of blurring to... so its not lying? blurring the truth is not lying? the chilcott report obviously thinks it isnt, its just inventive interpretation, like i said at the top of the thread, something all politicians do, i dont agree with it, like low blows and dropping the head in and using the odd elbow but if you box.... politics a dirty business | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process." of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
"I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread. I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson. He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember. He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
"Don't you mean he has blurred the lines more than others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So why did he win an election with such a majority? We didn't vote by the way. To much of a bad bad lot" Brexit. The single only reason! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So why did he win an election with such a majority? We didn't vote by the way. To much of a bad bad lot " The seat majority in Parliament is quite flattering to him, he only got about 300,000 more votes than disaster May got. So FPTP has a lot to answer for. As does "getting Brexit done". It's not impossible that his lying during the election campaign also helped! To my mind a man that was sacked from two previous jobs for lying, should never have been in the competition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
Don't you mean he has blurred the lines more than others
"No, I really don't.I mean world class, blatant lying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
"your bias, your own words/theirs I believe the Chilcott report found that he did not lie, he blurred the lines between what he knew and what he believed... yes i believe there are people living on mars.... that the euro will collapse... i believed officer i was doing the right speed in the 30 zone! Its called lying! You in my opinion are just being bias how you apply your liberalness to the subject | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thread is loaded and childish, i saw tyson fury knock a man to the floor and when he got back up he hit him again! what this thread is doing is picking out one man and then trying to highlight his behaviour while disassociating it from the behaviour around him and the circumstances involved. Yes tyson was hitting someone trying to hit him.... It is upto the voters to decide and so far they seem to favour boris and find his behaviour acceptable in the circumstances. " this still stands..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
your bias, your own words/theirs
I believe the Chilcott report found that he did not lie, he blurred the lines between what he knew and what he believed...
yes i believe there are people living on mars.... that the euro will collapse... i believed officer i was doing the right speed in the 30 zone! Its called lying!
You in my opinion are just being bias how you apply your liberalness to the subject
"I am biased of course, everyone is. However, I can also be objective about the data. An inquiry was required to determine if Blair lied. The BBC, Full Facts, etc. have hundreds of examples where Johnson has lied about facts already published by government. It's the scale and frequency of lying that our Prime Minister is doing that is the issue I have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
your bias, your own words/theirs
I believe the Chilcott report found that he did not lie, he blurred the lines between what he knew and what he believed...
yes i believe there are people living on mars.... that the euro will collapse... i believed officer i was doing the right speed in the 30 zone! Its called lying!
You in my opinion are just being bias how you apply your liberalness to the subject
I am biased of course, everyone is. However, I can also be objective about the data.
An inquiry was required to determine if Blair lied.
The BBC, Full Facts, etc. have hundreds of examples where Johnson has lied about facts already published by government.
It's the scale and frequency of lying that our Prime Minister is doing that is the issue I have."an inquiry was required by who? the voters? theyll decide what is acceptable language, what was really meant etc etc, what is blurred truth? lol its the court of democracy and johnson seems to be doing ok in it! History will ultimately be the judge. But you dont seem very objective at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? " asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow "Yes I know you ticked the "ah they're all the same" box. One of the standard excuses for not caring that your leader is taking you and your country for a ride. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? " Are you defending him because you can’t find anyone better or are you defending him because you think he’s the right man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? Are you defending him because you can’t find anyone better or are you defending him because you think he’s the right man? " I am convinced that post is satire. Nobody, not even Johnson’s most ardent supporters, could claim he is honest! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
"So, let's ask a different question. Without deflecting or otherwise avoiding the question, are you happy that a proven serial liar is the leader of our country, representing us on the world stage? I'm not interested in what a minority of voters think, or excuses about "circumstances" (which I still don't get), just simply do you think his behaviour is acceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
Yes I know you ticked the "ah they're all the same" box. One of the standard excuses for not caring that your leader is taking you and your country for a ride. Thank you.
"yes you want the world to be black and white, no grey areas, you want the estate agent to say, crap house in a crap location and never sell it lol Thank you for confirming that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
So, let's ask a different question.
Without deflecting or otherwise avoiding the question, are you happy that a proven serial liar is the leader of our country, representing us on the world stage?
I'm not interested in what a minority of voters think, or excuses about "circumstances" (which I still don't get), just simply do you think his behaviour is acceptable?"no id have a fucking revolution, bring back the guillotine! i agree with donald when he said drain the swamp, fucking euro mps, uk mps, head of bbc, bullshit peerages...that fucking head of met, she can go... chop chop chop... all milking the workers... although i accept someone has to run the show they dont have to fuck us at every corner, although i like getting fucked on a corner (wink wink).... ref boris, he is a smart cookie, stuck on a zip line, yeah right! who gets the news clip?.... i get all the games all the moves, the pop stars do the same etc etc...always happy always positive... but yes chop chop chop oh and chop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I really am curious if anybody thinks Johnson is honest. I think he IS honest, and I’m a fan of his. I am a Conservative and do not consider anyone else doing better than him. The poor chap even caught Covid himself and nearly died. All those idiots who think they could have done better are judging with hindsight. Would you have honestly done better if you were PM? " Yes. For a start, I like to think I’d have actually turned up to SAGE briefings. But then, he has a record for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, like in his mistresses bed instead of at home with his wife and kids, so that’s nothing new, is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
So, let's ask a different question.
Without deflecting or otherwise avoiding the question, are you happy that a proven serial liar is the leader of our country, representing us on the world stage?
I'm not interested in what a minority of voters think, or excuses about "circumstances" (which I still don't get), just simply do you think his behaviour is acceptable?
no id have a fucking revolution, bring back the guillotine! i agree with donald when he said drain the swamp, fucking euro mps, uk mps, head of bbc, bullshit peerages...that fucking head of met, she can go... chop chop chop... all milking the workers... although i accept someone has to run the show they dont have to fuck us at every corner, although i like getting fucked on a corner (wink wink)....
ref boris, he is a smart cookie, stuck on a zip line, yeah right! who gets the news clip?.... i get all the games all the moves, the pop stars do the same etc etc...always happy always positive... but yes chop chop chop oh and chop
"Ok, thanks for your input. I understand your problem, it's quite indefensible isn't it? But he does have a blue rosette. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"is corbyn a racist who would not clean up his own party, yes or no? No and no. I think we can categorically say that Corbyn is not, and never has been, racist. He has been very critical of the State of Israel, but that does not equate to anti-semitism. The EHRC report even stated that the handling of complaints improved under his leadership. They also did not present one piece of evidence of racism on the part of Corbyn. When the Forde report is (finally) released we will see that it was actually party members, opposed to his leadership, that interfered and hindered the process. of course they didnt lol he failed to bring his own party to account, he led the party he was responible for its behaviour yes or no? or was he just incapable of leading them? yes or no? in truth i couldnt careless about corbyn, im just highlighting the fact a lot depends on how you want to look at it,salmon and sturgeon..... yep boris isnt looking quite as bad now.. politics is a pit of vipers
I think being secretively undermined by paid party officers, is in a totally different area to what was being discussed in this thread.
I also can't accept the "blurred line" argument in respect to Johnson.
He does look bad, he has lied about more subjects, and more frequently than any politician, let alone PM I can remember.
He is in the super league, along with Trump. I don't think he has had one interview where there has not been at least one lie.
Don't you mean he has blurred the lines more than others
No, I really don't.I mean world class, blatant lying."Ok then world class blatant blurring of lines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
So, let's ask a different question.
Without deflecting or otherwise avoiding the question, are you happy that a proven serial liar is the leader of our country, representing us on the world stage?
I'm not interested in what a minority of voters think, or excuses about "circumstances" (which I still don't get), just simply do you think his behaviour is acceptable?
no id have a fucking revolution, bring back the guillotine! i agree with donald when he said drain the swamp, fucking euro mps, uk mps, head of bbc, bullshit peerages...that fucking head of met, she can go... chop chop chop... all milking the workers... although i accept someone has to run the show they dont have to fuck us at every corner, although i like getting fucked on a corner (wink wink)....
ref boris, he is a smart cookie, stuck on a zip line, yeah right! who gets the news clip?.... i get all the games all the moves, the pop stars do the same etc etc...always happy always positive... but yes chop chop chop oh and chop
Ok, thanks for your input.
I understand your problem, it's quite indefensible isn't it? But he does have a blue rosette."trouble is a lot of the time they cant say the truth, the public dont want it and cant handle it, like when jamie oliver said they buy 52 inch tvs and flash trainers but eat chicken nuggets lol outcry and he nearly lost his sainsburys contract...so he went into reverse... an mp would have been sacked... so they say well were all different and la la la... outcomes cant be guaranteed... it is a tricky line to walk... boris is quite good at walking it hence his votes.. but its not an excuse to rob us  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimming the back and forth, there's been a lot of "well they're all the same and they all lie." And a fair bit of whataboutism and deflection, trying to drag things off topic. 1 person actually said they think Johnson is honest. 1. And I'm honestly not sure if that comment was satire. If it isn't satire and that 1 person does happen to glance in, why do you think Johnson is honest when there are countless examples of him lying in the public domain? And why do you think Boris Johnson was sacked twice for lying if he's honest? asking if a politician is honest is like asking if an estate agent is lol is it near a busy road or a main route into town... is it small or perfectly formed lol... i cant believe you are actually asking the question and thinking its sensible and when i asked you if it was a bait question you never answered, suspicious, inquiry to follow
So, let's ask a different question.
Without deflecting or otherwise avoiding the question, are you happy that a proven serial liar is the leader of our country, representing us on the world stage?
I'm not interested in what a minority of voters think, or excuses about "circumstances" (which I still don't get), just simply do you think his behaviour is acceptable?
no id have a fucking revolution, bring back the guillotine! i agree with donald when he said drain the swamp, fucking euro mps, uk mps, head of bbc, bullshit peerages...that fucking head of met, she can go... chop chop chop... all milking the workers... although i accept someone has to run the show they dont have to fuck us at every corner, although i like getting fucked on a corner (wink wink)....
ref boris, he is a smart cookie, stuck on a zip line, yeah right! who gets the news clip?.... i get all the games all the moves, the pop stars do the same etc etc...always happy always positive... but yes chop chop chop oh and chop
Ok, thanks for your input.
I understand your problem, it's quite indefensible isn't it? But he does have a blue rosette."Their input is always "interesting" isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either?" like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe they just prefer him to the corrupt liars that sit on the other side of the house?" Please name an act of corruption undertaken by a member of the opposition front bench? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
ps wasnt it a labour mp whos just been in court for threatening her rival ref husband? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either? like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot "...everyone that votes for him is an idiot! There fixed it for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either? like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot
...everyone that votes for him is an idiot!
There fixed it for you "600 and a few more and the percentage is quiet high for all political partys, for members to be called out and splattered across the front page has either racist anti semitic islamophobic homophobic. All the worst of society in one place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either? like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot
...everyone that votes for him is an idiot!
There fixed it for you "you havent fixed anything for me? i voted greens.... but youve just called the voting majority an idiot... guess that makes you an idiot? a self important know it all? definitely not an open minded and liberal thinking citizen in a modern society...do you want a drum to bang to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While the thread was about Johnson this has to be said... In a move designed to strengthen authoritarianism, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said today that an overhaul of the U.K.’s Human Rights Act would include a “mechanism” to “correct” rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. The cornerstone of democracy is the three pillars of the executive, legislature and judiciary. Each independent of the other. We live in dangerous times as fascism is coming, not with marching jack boots but via softly spoken well dressed posh boys!" well weve already established you think if you vote for someone you dont approve off then your an idiot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While the thread was about Johnson this has to be said... In a move designed to strengthen authoritarianism, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said today that an overhaul of the U.K.’s Human Rights Act would include a “mechanism” to “correct” rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. The cornerstone of democracy is the three pillars of the executive, legislature and judiciary. Each independent of the other. We live in dangerous times as fascism is coming, not with marching jack boots but via softly spoken well dressed posh boys!" Personally I have a big problem with empty parchment starting with I have no rights waiting to be filled in by someone with my so called rights which can be added to and taken away from surely we have undeniable rights as human beings and only dictatorships gift you your rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either? like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot
...everyone that votes for him is an idiot!
There fixed it for you
you havent fixed anything for me? i voted greens.... but youve just called the voting majority an idiot... guess that makes you an idiot? a self important know it all? definitely not an open minded and liberal thinking citizen in a modern society...do you want a drum to bang to? "I stand by what I said... 43.6% of those who voted in the 2019 General Election did a stupid thing (or honestly believe the people thry were voting for were good for the UK in which case...!!!!!) And for someone who seems to be espousing being an open minded liberal citizen (which strikes me as an oxymoron when talking about “conservatism”*) you seem quick to attack me personally for having an opinion = “a self important know it all” gee thanks! *as I have said repeatedly on various threads, I do not consider our current govt to be Conservatives. They are proto-fascists way to the right of Thatcher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"While the thread was about Johnson this has to be said... In a move designed to strengthen authoritarianism, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said today that an overhaul of the U.K.’s Human Rights Act would include a “mechanism” to “correct” rulings by the European Court of Human Rights. The cornerstone of democracy is the three pillars of the executive, legislature and judiciary. Each independent of the other. We live in dangerous times as fascism is coming, not with marching jack boots but via softly spoken well dressed posh boys! well weve already established you think if you vote for someone you dont approve off then your an idiot "Except we really haven’t established any such thing. I just find voting for a party on a single issue pretty dumb. All those people clamouring for Brexit without realising what a Trojan Horse it was, even following a decade of Tory imposed austerity that wasn’t actually necessary and achieved nothing (except undermining the NHS to such an extent that it almost couldn’t cope with the pandemic). There were many much more able Conservative MPs in the running for party leader but it went to Johnson! A serial liar who was a known security risk due to his Russian connections! He and those who supported him and landed Ministerial jobs have some very dubious voting records. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So did anybody apart from that one person who might have been indulging in satire actually say Johnson isn't a liar? An did anybody absolve him on the corruption front either? like it or not, bang your drum BUT everyone who votes for him... so thats quite a lot
...everyone that votes for him is an idiot!
There fixed it for you
you havent fixed anything for me? i voted greens.... but youve just called the voting majority an idiot... guess that makes you an idiot? a self important know it all? definitely not an open minded and liberal thinking citizen in a modern society...do you want a drum to bang to?
I stand by what I said... 43.6% of those who voted in the 2019 General Election did a stupid thing (or honestly believe the people thry were voting for were good for the UK in which case...!!!!!)
And for someone who seems to be espousing being an open minded liberal citizen (which strikes me as an oxymoron when talking about “conservatism”*) you seem quick to attack me personally for having an opinion = “a self important know it all” gee thanks!
*as I have said repeatedly on various threads, I do not consider our current govt to be Conservatives. They are proto-fascists way to the right of Thatcher."question mark question mark, you do know what those mean? so i never insulted you or attacked you, you were the one that started calling people idoits.. and people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.... are 43.6% in glass houses? i dont know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...everyone that votes for him is an idiot! There fixed it for you these were your words, i heard Einstein voted for him and hes not an idiot "Afraid I just don’t think anything to do with this Govt is amusing. They are insidious. I don't know about you, but I find it a tad worrying that a UK Government which has normalised lying, avoids scrutiny and which gaslights the country on a daily basis, will introduce legislation to "correct" human rights court judgments that ministers believe are "incorrect". But hey, as long as we remain open minded and allow that it doesn’t really matter hey? I just can’t support extremism on either the right or left if politics. It is toxic and will ultimately not benefit the UK or our society. You strike me as someone who always wants to have the last word so feel free as I’m done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...everyone that votes for him is an idiot! There fixed it for you these were your words, i heard Einstein voted for him and hes not an idiot
Afraid I just don’t think anything to do with this Govt is amusing. They are insidious.
I don't know about you, but I find it a tad worrying that a UK Government which has normalised lying, avoids scrutiny and which gaslights the country on a daily basis, will introduce legislation to "correct" human rights court judgments that ministers believe are "incorrect".
But hey, as long as we remain open minded and allow that it doesn’t really matter hey? I just can’t support extremism on either the right or left if politics. It is toxic and will ultimately not benefit the UK or our society.
You strike me as someone who always wants to have the last word so feel free as I’m done."instead of your inspiring diatribe...? youll come back for a look | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimmed the new replies. Looks like nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt. The usual tactics of "ah they're all the same" keeps popping up as an excuse for voting for a corrupt, morla vacuum. I also think I spotted an example or 2 of "ah but he got voted for, so it's fine if he's a liar and corrupt" It all feels rather predictable and rather depressing at this point." Do you feel that you've scored some valuable points now that you're able to say conclusively that nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt? Is it something you need in your life to feel a bit superior? I'll congratulate you if nobody else will - well done you So, what's next now for mrmanslut after his tremendous victory - another predictable post belittling either brexiters, Tories, or both? I'm on tenterhooks  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimmed the new replies. Looks like nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt. The usual tactics of "ah they're all the same" keeps popping up as an excuse for voting for a corrupt, morla vacuum. I also think I spotted an example or 2 of "ah but he got voted for, so it's fine if he's a liar and corrupt" It all feels rather predictable and rather depressing at this point. Do you feel that you've scored some valuable points now that you're able to say conclusively that nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt? Is it something you need in your life to feel a bit superior? I'll congratulate you if nobody else will - well done you So, what's next now for mrmanslut after his tremendous victory - another predictable post belittling either brexiters, Tories, or both? I'm on tenterhooks "I'll tick your box for no defence of Johnson's lying and corruption. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimmed the new replies. Looks like nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt. The usual tactics of "ah they're all the same" keeps popping up as an excuse for voting for a corrupt, morla vacuum. I also think I spotted an example or 2 of "ah but he got voted for, so it's fine if he's a liar and corrupt" It all feels rather predictable and rather depressing at this point. Do you feel that you've scored some valuable points now that you're able to say conclusively that nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt? Is it something you need in your life to feel a bit superior? I'll congratulate you if nobody else will - well done you So, what's next now for mrmanslut after his tremendous victory - another predictable post belittling either brexiters, Tories, or both? I'm on tenterhooks "Your profile states you are ‘very delusional’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimmed the new replies. Looks like nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt. The usual tactics of "ah they're all the same" keeps popping up as an excuse for voting for a corrupt, morla vacuum. I also think I spotted an example or 2 of "ah but he got voted for, so it's fine if he's a liar and corrupt" It all feels rather predictable and rather depressing at this point. Do you feel that you've scored some valuable points now that you're able to say conclusively that nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt? Is it something you need in your life to feel a bit superior? I'll congratulate you if nobody else will - well done you So, what's next now for mrmanslut after his tremendous victory - another predictable post belittling either brexiters, Tories, or both? I'm on tenterhooks
Your profile states you are ‘very delusional’ ? "Yes, I have MH problems - what's it to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Skimmed the new replies. Looks like nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt. The usual tactics of "ah they're all the same" keeps popping up as an excuse for voting for a corrupt, morla vacuum. I also think I spotted an example or 2 of "ah but he got voted for, so it's fine if he's a liar and corrupt" It all feels rather predictable and rather depressing at this point. Do you feel that you've scored some valuable points now that you're able to say conclusively that nobody is now defending Johnson by saying he isn't a liar or isn't corrupt? Is it something you need in your life to feel a bit superior? I'll congratulate you if nobody else will - well done you So, what's next now for mrmanslut after his tremendous victory - another predictable post belittling either brexiters, Tories, or both? I'm on tenterhooks
Your profile states you are ‘very delusional’ ?
Yes, I have MH problems - what's it to you?"It has nothing at all to do with me, it might explain your support of Boris though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone.... "O...K... I'm not sure there's any point replying to such posts anymore. So I don't think I'll bother. Be well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone.... "I think the OP asked a very clear and simple question that requires a very clear and simple answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone....
O...K...
I'm not sure there's any point replying to such posts anymore. So I don't think I'll bother.
Be well"Bye then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone....
I think the OP asked a very clear and simple question that requires a very clear and simple answer "read the thread, covered it way back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone....
I think the OP asked a very clear and simple question that requires a very clear and simple answer
read the thread, covered it way back "I have and you didn’t | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone....
I think the OP asked a very clear and simple question that requires a very clear and simple answer
read the thread, covered it way back
I have and you didn’t "play ping pong with someone else, bye | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what there are only 2 colours? black and white! and only one sound? that of a banging drum..... oh what have i done, ive created a better world for everyone....
I think the OP asked a very clear and simple question that requires a very clear and simple answer
read the thread, covered it way back
I have and you didn’t
play ping pong with someone else, bye "Indeed, it’s good to see you tried though, thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... it seems nobody (apart from possibly 1 person) thinks Johnson isn't a corrupt liar. So why do people vote for him? I suspect the usual excuses will come up eg "ahhh they're all the same" or "But that other person would be even worse!" etc. But they're not reasons to actually vote for Johnson. They're simply excuses not to vote for somebody else. What are reasons to actually vote for Johnson over any other choices?" The only reasons to vote for Johnson would be (a) the belief that, with a corrupt government, money can be made by scamming other UK citizens, (b) mass insanity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... it seems nobody (apart from possibly 1 person) thinks Johnson isn't a corrupt liar. So why do people vote for him? I suspect the usual excuses will come up eg "ahhh they're all the same" or "But that other person would be even worse!" etc. But they're not reasons to actually vote for Johnson. They're simply excuses not to vote for somebody else. What are reasons to actually vote for Johnson over any other choices? The only reasons to vote for Johnson would be (a) the belief that, with a corrupt government, money can be made by scamming other UK citizens, (b) mass insanity." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... it seems nobody (apart from possibly 1 person) thinks Johnson isn't a corrupt liar. So why do people vote for him? I suspect the usual excuses will come up eg "ahhh they're all the same" or "But that other person would be even worse!" etc. But they're not reasons to actually vote for Johnson. They're simply excuses not to vote for somebody else. What are reasons to actually vote for Johnson over any other choices? The only reasons to vote for Johnson would be (a) the belief that, with a corrupt government, money can be made by scamming other UK citizens, (b) mass insanity." Don’t be that “guy” mate  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So... it seems nobody (apart from possibly 1 person) thinks Johnson isn't a corrupt liar. So why do people vote for him? I suspect the usual excuses will come up eg "ahhh they're all the same" or "But that other person would be even worse!" etc. But they're not reasons to actually vote for Johnson. They're simply excuses not to vote for somebody else. What are reasons to actually vote for Johnson over any other choices?" yes, no one wants to debate with a drum banger? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics!" I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics! I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input." Thank you! But it's the truth isn't it? I remember in 2017 General Election when every Labour MP was elected on the basis of respecting the referendum vote. Within hours they had junked it! They had lied Many people learned a big lesson from that and Labour has destroyed itself. Sadly, you have to expect lies in politics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics! I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input. Thank you! But it's the truth isn't it? I remember in 2017 General Election when every Labour MP was elected on the basis of respecting the referendum vote. Within hours they had junked it! They had lied Many people learned a big lesson from that and Labour has destroyed itself. Sadly, you have to expect lies in politics" You are wrong. As brexit referendum had no description of what brexit is, looks like, contains or doesn't contain, they absolutely respected it. In the main they insisted that the brexit deal resemble what the brexit leadership said. For example not leaving the single market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics! I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input. Thank you! But it's the truth isn't it? I remember in 2017 General Election when every Labour MP was elected on the basis of respecting the referendum vote. Within hours they had junked it! They had lied Many people learned a big lesson from that and Labour has destroyed itself. Sadly, you have to expect lies in politics You are wrong. As brexit referendum had no description of what brexit is, looks like, contains or doesn't contain, they absolutely respected it. In the main they insisted that the brexit deal resemble what the brexit leadership said. For example not leaving the single market." Oh dear, oh dear, more Remainer lies about that disgraceful history. The single market and the customs union ARE the EU. It was made perfectly clear by both sides in the referendum that we would be leaving both. Did Remainers actually know what they were voting for? Voters certainly knew and it will be generations before the Remainer parties are forgiven | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics! I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input. Thank you! But it's the truth isn't it? I remember in 2017 General Election when every Labour MP was elected on the basis of respecting the referendum vote. Within hours they had junked it! They had lied Many people learned a big lesson from that and Labour has destroyed itself. Sadly, you have to expect lies in politics You are wrong. As brexit referendum had no description of what brexit is, looks like, contains or doesn't contain, they absolutely respected it. In the main they insisted that the brexit deal resemble what the brexit leadership said. For example not leaving the single market." I voted Labour and I voted to remain ( although I wouldn't now) but I am afraid i don't agree with you in that they respected the result of the vote, because the amount of evidence to the contrary is staggering. Calling for a second vote/ peoples vote or whatever you want to call it, was not respecting the result of the 1st referendum, nor was all the games played in Parliament. In fact if both of the main parties had worked together on a deal instead of going behind each others backs and colluding with the EU then we may have ended up with a far better trade agreement. When they said they would respect the result there was nothing in there manifesto about what brexit should look like and include or not include as I just checked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone think Johnson is honest? Or Starmer? It's the nature of politics! I'll add you to the list of people using the "ahhh but they're all the same" excuse to jusify Johnson. Thank you for your input. Thank you! But it's the truth isn't it? I remember in 2017 General Election when every Labour MP was elected on the basis of respecting the referendum vote. Within hours they had junked it! They had lied Many people learned a big lesson from that and Labour has destroyed itself. Sadly, you have to expect lies in politics You are wrong. As brexit referendum had no description of what brexit is, looks like, contains or doesn't contain, they absolutely respected it. In the main they insisted that the brexit deal resemble what the brexit leadership said. For example not leaving the single market. I voted Labour and I voted to remain ( although I wouldn't now) but I am afraid i don't agree with you in that they respected the result of the vote, because the amount of evidence to the contrary is staggering. Calling for a second vote/ peoples vote or whatever you want to call it, was not respecting the result of the 1st referendum, nor was all the games played in Parliament. In fact if both of the main parties had worked together on a deal instead of going behind each others backs and colluding with the EU then we may have ended up with a far better trade agreement. When they said they would respect the result there was nothing in there manifesto about what brexit should look like and include or not include as I just checked." Yes, and 200-plus Labour MPs were elected on that manifesto. Within hours of the election they revealed their true colours. They were elected on a big fat lie. All of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands." I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined." You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it" You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The last GE saw a "brexit goverment" elected, not a true Conservative goverment. " No. A true conservative government, crafty as ever, using 'brexit' as a gift horse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding." If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that?" It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that?" how many free trade deals has the UK now got ... And how many were not roll overs (or tweaks?.) Brexit allows us to go hunting for more... But I'm not sure I just the idea there is this huge tarriff wall we are knocking down. There is a wall (as with many countries) but it's not 100pc protectionism as you seem to suggest ... And we've barely removed a brick in the scale of things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK." If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers" which products have a 100pc tarriff ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers" You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producerswhich products have a 100pc tarriff ? " Ground coffee | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports?" You reach agreement on terms that suit both parties. But because you're not imposing EU tariffs on them you have a good chance of moving towards free trade When we were in the EU we had no chance of free trade And who do you think pays tariffs... it's all of us who have to pay higher prices. While wages, when in the EU were suppressed by free movement of labour. The EU is a reactionary's dream | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports?" Some of the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse... really our money...are landowners The Corn Laws were an earlier attempt to protect the wealth of landowners by use of tariffs. Do you know what happened next? Why should consumers pay these tariffs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports? Some of the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse... really our money...are landowners The Corn Laws were an earlier attempt to protect the wealth of landowners by use of tariffs. Do you know what happened next? Why should consumers pay these tariffs?" The other day you tried to use something said in the 1950's, without stating the source. Now you seem to think that in a modern world, somehow the corn laws are relevent. Truly odd behaviour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports? Some of the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse... really our money...are landowners The Corn Laws were an earlier attempt to protect the wealth of landowners by use of tariffs. Do you know what happened next? Why should consumers pay these tariffs?" we consumers pay tarriffs because we are also the employees who benefit from any protection they give. It's a balancing act. There's a reason we've done deals with smaller countries that are more economically like us, than signed bigger deals with India and China. At least that's my view. Do you think any free trade deal is a good deal for us and so we should crack on with the big developing countries ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports? Some of the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse... really our money...are landowners The Corn Laws were an earlier attempt to protect the wealth of landowners by use of tariffs. Do you know what happened next? Why should consumers pay these tariffs?we consumers pay tarriffs because we are also the employees who benefit from any protection they give. It's a balancing act. There's a reason we've done deals with smaller countries that are more economically like us, than signed bigger deals with India and China. At least that's my view. Do you think any free trade deal is a good deal for us and so we should crack on with the big developing countries ?" I am sure the uk / aus free trade deal has isds provisions, which allow corporations and businesses to seek compensation if their profits are hit by government policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that?" Oh man I have finally realised this is a parody account. Can’t believe I am bothering but... In the shop the NZ joint of lamb cost £5 (this is purely illustrative). In same shop the UK joint of lamb costs £8. For most consumers that price difference will determine their purchase decision. So why is the NZ lamb cheaper? Because of lower farming standards and lower costs inc wages. So what happens next? Unless the UK farmer reduces costs he/she cannot reduce price (and will go out of business). How do they reduce costs? Lower farming standards and lower wages. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it... lower cost to consumer = lower production costs (inc wages). If we remove tariffs many of our domestic industries will collapse from lower cost foreign competition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? Oh man I have finally realised this is a parody account. Can’t believe I am bothering but... In the shop the NZ joint of lamb cost £5 (this is purely illustrative). In same shop the UK joint of lamb costs £8. For most consumers that price difference will determine their purchase decision. So why is the NZ lamb cheaper? Because of lower farming standards and lower costs inc wages. So what happens next? Unless the UK farmer reduces costs he/she cannot reduce price (and will go out of business). How do they reduce costs? Lower farming standards and lower wages. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it... lower cost to consumer = lower production costs (inc wages). If we remove tariffs many of our domestic industries will collapse from lower cost foreign competition." What lower farm standards does New Zealand have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? Oh man I have finally realised this is a parody account. Can’t believe I am bothering but... In the shop the NZ joint of lamb cost £5 (this is purely illustrative). In same shop the UK joint of lamb costs £8. For most consumers that price difference will determine their purchase decision. So why is the NZ lamb cheaper? Because of lower farming standards and lower costs inc wages. So what happens next? Unless the UK farmer reduces costs he/she cannot reduce price (and will go out of business). How do they reduce costs? Lower farming standards and lower wages. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it... lower cost to consumer = lower production costs (inc wages). If we remove tariffs many of our domestic industries will collapse from lower cost foreign competition. What lower farm standards does New Zealand have? "Animal welfare | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? Oh man I have finally realised this is a parody account. Can’t believe I am bothering but... In the shop the NZ joint of lamb cost £5 (this is purely illustrative). In same shop the UK joint of lamb costs £8. For most consumers that price difference will determine their purchase decision. So why is the NZ lamb cheaper? Because of lower farming standards and lower costs inc wages. So what happens next? Unless the UK farmer reduces costs he/she cannot reduce price (and will go out of business). How do they reduce costs? Lower farming standards and lower wages. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it... lower cost to consumer = lower production costs (inc wages). If we remove tariffs many of our domestic industries will collapse from lower cost foreign competition. What lower farm standards does New Zealand have? "They use ractopamine in their pork productions. A growth hormone illegal in the EU. Plus some other growth hormones for beef production. Also illegal in the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? Oh man I have finally realised this is a parody account. Can’t believe I am bothering but... In the shop the NZ joint of lamb cost £5 (this is purely illustrative). In same shop the UK joint of lamb costs £8. For most consumers that price difference will determine their purchase decision. So why is the NZ lamb cheaper? Because of lower farming standards and lower costs inc wages. So what happens next? Unless the UK farmer reduces costs he/she cannot reduce price (and will go out of business). How do they reduce costs? Lower farming standards and lower wages. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it... lower cost to consumer = lower production costs (inc wages). If we remove tariffs many of our domestic industries will collapse from lower cost foreign competition. What lower farm standards does New Zealand have?
Animal welfare"Is that why they are rated third best in the world for animal welfare standards? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry" Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? " Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain." This applies equally with both New Zealand and Australia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I shouldn't really be surprised by the number of people, mainly from the leafy shires, who think that the sun shines out of his arse, with no hard evidence to support their stance other than 'He is a good bloke who deserves a chance'. That's how 'us and them' politics works. Unfortunately Labour wont get anywhere with out a more appealing name. They let the obvious 'Democrats' fall into divisive hands. I think Labour are screwed more due to numbers. Most voters at the last election voted for lefty parties than. But those votes got split between all the parties on the left. The Tories, n the other hand, are really the only party on the right. By becoming more right wing and Brexity than any other right wing parties, they mopped up all the votes from right wingers. Then there's the joyous first past the post which gave the Tories a big majority despite the fact parties on the left got more votes combined. You need to learn history. Benn, Shore, Castle, Foot, Heffer, Mikardo, Callaghan, Gaitskell...were they right wing? It was Heath, a Conservative, who took us in. The Left, until Blair, Mandelson etc, knew the EU was a device for forcing costs up and wages down. It's why bad employers support it You really do like banging the same old drum. On another thread you supported the NZ trade deal as being good for consumers through lower prices and only impacting on “wealthy landowners” (by which I think you were implying farmers). But you completely ignored the point that tariffs actually protect jobs (in this case agri workers and supply chain) and will put pressure to reduce costs (animal welfare and guess what...wages). And then in the same thread you contradict yourself saying being out of the EU and ending freedom of movement will mean wages will have to increase - ignoring the fact that this will lead to inflation and price increases for consumers! The mental gymnastics Brexit supporters have to stretch to to justify their beliefs is quite astounding. If only you had a knowledge of basic economics you'd realise there is no contradiction at all. Free trade is a historic cause, opposed only by vested interests that want to protect their interests at other people's expense. The EU tariff wall is the way they now work. Brexit will move us towards lower/nil tariffs and higher wages (due to leaving 'free movement of labour). The NZ deal is part of that What is contradictory in that? It's simple, we can cut our tariffs to zero, but other parties do not have to do the same. The academic studies on the wage impacts of free movement show it had little if any effects on wages. If the government, any government, wanted to raise sectorial wages, there was nothing to stop it, other than dogma. The NZ deal is not in the interests of, or benefits, the UK. If we cut tariffs we invite other parties to do the same. Any agreement is then reached on that basis. That way we move towards free/freer trade and it's mutual benefits. In the meantime we leave the EU dinosaurs imposing tariffs (some are uo to 100%) to impoverish consumers while enriching landowners and producers You can invite all you want, they have no need to follow, you just made the sale into the UK tarrif free. By the way, trying to say it enriches land owners is a bit daft, date hazard the majority of our imports are goods. Why do you want to see British jobs under cut with cheap imports? Some of the largest beneficiaries of EU largesse... really our money...are landowners The Corn Laws were an earlier attempt to protect the wealth of landowners by use of tariffs. Do you know what happened next? Why should consumers pay these tariffs? The other day you tried to use something said in the 1950's, without stating the source. Now you seem to think that in a modern world, somehow the corn laws are relevent. Truly odd behaviour." Yes. The Corn Laws erected a tariff wall around the country to make the working class and middle class pay high prices to the agricultural interest. What is the difference between that and the EU's Common External Tariff? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In reference to the original post. Many people claimed the EU was full of unelected commissioners . The detail proves that actually they are selected and approved by MEPs not the leader of the EU or one strong party. This is a recent list of unelected Ministers in Boris government. (Dated Jan 21) Lord Frost – Brexit Baroness Evans – Cabinet Office & Lords Lord Agnew – Cabinet Office & Treasury Lord True – Cabinet Office Lord Callanan – Business Lord Grimstone – Business & Transport Baroness Barran – DCMS Baroness Berridge – Education & Trade Lord Gardiner – Environment Lord Goldsmith – Environment & Foreign Office Baroness Vere – Transport Baroness Stedman-Scott – Work and Pensions Lord Bethell – Health and Social Care Lord Ahmad – Foreign Office Baroness Williams – Home Office Lord Greenhalgh – Home Office & Communities Baroness Goldie – Defence Lord Wolfson – Justice Lord Stewart – Advocate General for Scotland Add to this over 900 appointed lords topped up by a lot of Tory donors recently and you start to see what a joke it is to claim we have a more democratic government. Boris lied to suit the wealthy’s agenda of avoiding EU tax reforms. Nothing more nothing less. In ten years this country has been mismanaged and the bad guy is always the EU. " How could you change an EU Directive? If you don't like a UK law you simply vote the government out...or threaten to do so. How do you change EU Directives? Serious question that I keep asking...but it hasn't been answered | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain." Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain." Its actually because New Zealand agricultural has made itself some of the best in the world. You have to go back to 1973 to learn why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills?" lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills?" Around and around we go. You honestly think trade deals like the one with NZ are good for British workers (in this case agri workers and supply chain)? Your off the cuff “if they can’t compete” fails to carry through to the end result = job losses. High wages (without a concurrent rise in productivity AND a suitably large market of consumers to buy all that extra product) results in inflation and higher consumer prices. It really isn’t a hard economic concept to grasp. If it costs more to make a product (that includes wages) then the price will be higher! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny. "It had everything to do with them. We get democracy back, we reduce tariffs and we reduce cheap labour. That has been said for decades by Brexiteers. Didn't you know the issues? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? Around and around we go. You honestly think trade deals like the one with NZ are good for British workers (in this case agri workers and supply chain)? Your off the cuff “if they can’t compete” fails to carry through to the end result = job losses. High wages (without a concurrent rise in productivity AND a suitably large market of consumers to buy all that extra product) results in inflation and higher consumer prices. It really isn’t a hard economic concept to grasp. If it costs more to make a product (that includes wages) then the price will be higher!" You don't understand how high costs drive productivity, do you? Let me explain: employers don't invest in training or automation when they can just bring in more cheap labour. That's the EU model. It's going and we'll all benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just to add... a trade deal like the one with NZ that actually reduces UK GDP, let’s just say that again, it REDUCES UK GDP, is not the kind of trade deal to shout about. We keep cutting deals like that and the UK will eventually be in its’ knees!" Because the deal hasn't been finalised or published yet, financial brains in the know are hedging on a plus/minus 0.01% on gdp figures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny.
It had everything to do with them. We get democracy back, we reduce tariffs and we reduce cheap labour.
That has been said for decades by Brexiteers.
Didn't you know the issues?"Just because you say something it doesn’t make it true or accurate. The people who said and/or promoted such rhetoric do not exactly have solid, trustworthy or reliable credentials. Brexiters have been had but will never have the balls to simply admit it. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a real man/woman to admit them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny.
It had everything to do with them. We get democracy back, we reduce tariffs and we reduce cheap labour.
That has been said for decades by Brexiteers.
Didn't you know the issues?"I don't know if this is a wind up or not. I hope so, because it's very funny. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny.
It had everything to do with them. We get democracy back, we reduce tariffs and we reduce cheap labour.
That has been said for decades by Brexiteers.
Didn't you know the issues?
Just because you say something it doesn’t make it true or accurate. The people who said and/or promoted such rhetoric do not exactly have solid, trustworthy or reliable credentials. Brexiters have been had but will never have the balls to simply admit it. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a real man/woman to admit them!"It was said again and again...thousands of times over the years...that EU membership meant inflated bills, protected incomes for inefficient producers, low productivity and downward pressure on wages. It's why support for Brexit was strongest among the working class who had been abandoned by a smug Labour Party. I'm surprised you never heard any of this. Everyone else knew | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And just to add... a trade deal like the one with NZ that actually reduces UK GDP, let’s just say that again, it REDUCES UK GDP, is not the kind of trade deal to shout about. We keep cutting deals like that and the UK will eventually be in its’ knees! Because the deal hasn't been finalised or published yet, financial brains in the know are hedging on a plus/minus 0.01% on gdp figures. " Oh behave and just scroll back up. Govt’s own impact assessment! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK government's own forecasts predict a trade deal with New Zealand could overall slightly reduce the size of the UK economy, with gains from cheaper imports being offset by damage to domestic farming communities. According to the Government's own forecast, this deal will lead to reductions in growth and jobs in the UK farming sector because, as the scoping paper says, and I quote, 'New Zealand's producers may be able to supply UK retailers at lower cost relative to domestic producers', - Emily Thornberry Do you know why New Zealand farmers can supply cheaper lamb from the other side of the world, than our local farmers can? Combo of lower wages, higher intensity farming (inc much larger farms with higher density of livestock), lower environmental regulations and less restrictions on growth hormones/genetic modification. The point is that adrian continues to push the idea that removal of tariffs is only a good thing because it results in lower costs for consumers, but conveniently ignores that to compete UK farmers will have to reduce their own costs. That is only achievable through a reduction in standards and lower wages for agri workers and the supply chain. Lower wages for agricultural workers? But Brexit means we can strike free trade deals without being subject to having to let any of 465m EU citizens into the country which forces wages down. It's a win-win. If some businesses don't want to/or can't operate in that environment then they have to ask if that's the sort of business they should be in. After all, why should workers accept squeezed wages and consumers accept inflated bills? lolz The suggestion that Brexit had anything to do with workers and consumers is very funny.
It had everything to do with them. We get democracy back, we reduce tariffs and we reduce cheap labour.
That has been said for decades by Brexiteers.
Didn't you know the issues?
Just because you say something it doesn’t make it true or accurate. The people who said and/or promoted such rhetoric do not exactly have solid, trustworthy or reliable credentials. Brexiters have been had but will never have the balls to simply admit it. Everyone makes mistakes, but it takes a real man/woman to admit them!
It was said again and again...thousands of times over the years...that EU membership meant inflated bills, protected incomes for inefficient producers, low productivity and downward pressure on wages.
It's why support for Brexit was strongest among the working class who had been abandoned by a smug Labour Party.
I'm surprised you never heard any of this. Everyone else knew"Lolz You're either making fun of people who blindly believed all the anti EU propaganda and lies over the years. Or, you blindly, unquestioningly, believed all the anti EU propaganda and lies over the years. I hope it's the former. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
