Cable Forum - Election 2019

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Election 2019 - Week 3 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708416)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018214)

One thing i noticed as an overpaid engineer was poor people always had a better tv than me.
And might i add i still get by on a bag of coal a week;)

Shut up and empty your chamber pot you dirty old man.

:p:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018226)

:banghead:

So, while you’re off learning about absolute v relative poverty and their differing effects, perhaps you could spend a few minutes reading up on “structural deficit”.

:rolleyes:

so tory debt is all fine labour one all bad? good to know I guess

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018225)

the debt doubled under the tories never ever been higher that's a FACT over 1.8 trillion

WRONG!!! - Still lying I see, you need to stop telling utter lies Dave42, getting sick of it reading the same crap from you that simply is not true!

From full fact:

Claim:

Government debt has doubled under the Conservatives.

Conclusion:

Not correct. Public sector net debt, adjusted for inflation, rose by 53% between 2009/10 and 2016/17.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-...national-debt/

53% increase is not double! :dozey: :dunce:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018229)

so tory debt is all fine labour one all bad? good to know I guess

Any debt is fine if it is sustainable and generates more growth than the interest charges it attracts. In terms of future spending plans, I think it unlikely that Labour’s £80-plus billion of additional current spending will achieve that.

I suspect I’m casting pearls before swine her though. Have you looked up “structural deficit” yet? Do you understand why the national debt has increased so much between 2010 and 2019?

No, I thought not.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018224)

There’s no case there Den.

You haven’t provided any links to any sources, credible or otherwise.

This isn’t a case, it’s smears of the kind you seem to love passing your righteous judgment on our politicians for.

I’m not pleading that Boris or anybody else is a saint incidentally. But it’s a very old tactic of the Left to keep repeating a smear until everyone assumes it’s true, and you’ve fallen for it like a mug.

Go on, I dare you, look up the sources for all the things you’ve accused BoJo of. Look at all of it in context and then offer some judgment about what he’s done and how bad it is.

Alternatively just sit safe and smug behind your keyboard and keep on posting acres of meaningless claptrap ....

Here is the original article for the 'watermelon smiles' quote: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tay-there.html

Quote:

What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.

They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird. Like Zeus, back there in the Iliad, he has turned his shining eyes away, far over the lands of the Hippemolgoi, the drinkers of mares' milk. He has forgotten domestic affairs, and here, as it happens, in this modest little country that elected him, hell has broken loose.

Nothing in the context absolves of him of it imo.

He didn't say the thing about 'blacks being at the other pole'. He published an article in the Spectator from Taki who did.

Can't be bothered to google the rest, although it is common knowledge he was fired from The Times for lying and fired from cabinet for lying about an affair isn't it?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

If Boris said he farted perfume some on here would believe it or defend his right to lie. Brainwashed or deluded, hard to say.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018240)

If Boris said he farted perfume some on here would believe it or defend his right to lie. Brainwashed or deluded, hard to say.

Yet you let it go over your head that Labour has a £80 Billion+ spending spree that is not fully costed, requires a forest of magic money trees.

You're happy to let it go over your head that Labour is a Marxist movement that would drive the UK to a Venezuela way of living, where not even the rich would be able to afford a cup of coffee.

You're prepared to let it go over your head that Corbyn wants rid of Trident, making Russia very happy.

You say us who wish to vote Tory on here, are deluded, I think you got serious problems if you think Labour is your answer, deluded and brainwashed you say, if the shoe fits, wear it yourself! :rolleyes:

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36018233)

Here is the original article for the 'watermelon smiles' quote: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...tay-there.html

Nothing in the context absolves of him of it imo.

He didn't say the thing about 'blacks being at the other pole'. He published an article in the Spectator from Taki who did.

Can't be bothered to google the rest, although it is common knowledge he was fired from The Times for lying and fired from cabinet for lying about an affair isn't it?

And here’s a report of him acknowledging the offence and apologising for it ... in 2006.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...23/london.race

As I said, I’m not beatifying him by any means. I am however demanding context. You may feel that the context of his original remark does not soften them; fair enough. I however feel that the fact the comments are 13 years old and were subsequently apologised is an important piece of context that nobody accusing BoJo seems in any hurry to acknowledge.

I am quite certain that you, and Denphone, would be personally aggrieved if somebody kept repeating errors of judgment you made more than a decade ago, without discussion of context, with the clear intention that other people should judge your character based solely on their list of your past failings regardless of any restorative action you may have taken.

Denphone, it seems to me, is always in a massive hurry to tut and shake his head at the moral vacuity of our political leaders, yet he thinks nothing of engaging in exactly the same morally dubious smears he accuses politicians of. And he is not alone - simply a recent example in this thread.

I could wish that this being a discussion forum, and not a party election leaflet, we could engage with the issues critically rather than just repeating personal attack lines, but it’s a faint hope indeed.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36018219)

Boris Johnson called Commonwealth citizens “piccaninnies” and “watermelons”

Boris Johnson said Britain should be “in charge” of Africa again

Boris Johnson stated that “orientals” had “have larger brains and higher IQ scores”, while “blacks are at the other pole”

Boris Johnson also stated that Muslim women were “bank robbers”

Boris Johnson Johnson’s ministerial record consists of two excruciating years as foreign secretary during which he regularly embarrassed Britain with gaffes, gratuitous insults and carelessness of the sort that ensured Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains incarcerated in Tehran

Boris Johnson is a serial philanderer with two broken marriages and a love child. He is profoundly untrustworthy and disloyal, as his wives and a succession of Tory leaders can testify

He was fired by The Times for making up stories

LAD! :D

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018242)

I could wish that this being a discussion forum, and not a party election leaflet, we could engage with the issues critically rather than just repeating personal attack lines, but it’s a faint hope indeed.

We need to consider some steps I think here Chris, we cannot keep having wild claims being made without validated citations. I have left this as an idea in the team forum, for us to consider, discuss and implement.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36018192)

Adds up more than Labour's policies, the Tories aren't committing nearly as much money. Incidentally it's not so much the extra spending that's the issue, we should spend more on the NHS IMO, but the lack of proposals on where the money is coming from.

Or where the money is going to. There isn't the staff to employ in the first place. If there are unfilled vacancies, then the budget for their wages should already be in place, ie they can already afford it.

Mind you that's nothing to this in the Labour Manifesto.

Quote:

We will create a million climate jobs in every region and nation of the UK – good, skilled jobs that will bring prosperity back to parts of our country neglected for too long.

That adds up to more than 10 million.:D

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018242)

I am afraid that you are part of that very problem as indeed we all are. I also wish that what you describe could come to pass but the majority on this forum are more intent of endless games of hyperbole and wind ups. Your recent posts on this thread have been very combative especially your reply to Den yet you then profess to want to rise above all this petty, tribal mud slinging? This seems inconsistent to me.

To be honest, I am tired of this toxic approach. It is not debate in any sense of the word. I have some ideas that I will submit via the appropriate channels but my expectations are low in this regard.

There are a few scenarios that are the major contributors to where we are today:

The Wind Up

Someone decides he wants to comment on a new Labour/Tory/Whoever policy. So what do we not get? A reasoned post, ideally with citations, detailing why this is a dumb idea. What we do get? A post specifically designed to wind up the "other side". Common techniques are the use of pejorative adjectives & descriptions: Marxist Corbyn, Facist Johnson, Nationalisation equals Venezuela, All Leavers are racists, Unions equal 1970's etc. The list goes on and on.

But here is the kicker, these throwaway retorts, designed to wind up and nothing more, keep getting churned out, day after day. Ok, say it once, make your point (?) but move on. The only objective in this continual process is to wind up and antagonise the "opposition" however you might define that.

Of course, those who these remarks are aimed at can do one of 2 things: ignore them or reply in kind. Human nature, as it is, favours the latter. I mean it is like nails down a blackboard, after a while you just lash out. I include myself in this category.

Honesty

Both sides of the debate make mistakes and do things that, when viewed in hindsight, are just wrong. No discussion, just wrong. What we do not see is admission from either side when this is pointed out. When the Tories pretended to be a fact checking site or presented a 6 week old video of Labour MP Jess Phillips, discussing manifestos, as current, who called this out? There are examples for Labour and the LibDems as well, they all have form.

I do see some, notably Sephiroth, calling out his own side but this is rare. I mean, if you are not prepared to accept the bloody obvious, how are you going to be convincing in arguing a case where the merits are far from certain.

Hyperbole

Many people use extreme, exaggerated descriptions of the person or institution that wish to criticise. Again, that may be fine for the first or second time to make an impact, get attention, etc. although I am not convinced on this one. But when this description is used continually, you just end up in this adversarial, tribal playground fight which eventually distills down to just, basically, name calling.

There may be those who just want to sling mud, maybe it makes them feel good who knows but this is not for me. When I react in kind, I may feel validated for a while but after I ask myself, what have I gained? Nothing, it just does your head in after a while ...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018206)

you are forgetting the tories made the poor lot poorer since they been in the gap never been bigger between rich and poor

Hmmmm.

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-lab...-modern-times/

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018220)

the propaganda is the lie austerity was a necessity when it was a very blatant political choice both main parties are disastrous I am one of the millions of poltical homeless ones in this country

And the alternative was....:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 17:02 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018225)

the debt doubled under the tories never ever been higher that's a FACT over 1.8 trillion and still raising

Of course it did, because of the deficit. That's why we needed to reduce the deficit. Pay attention, man!

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:02 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36018227)

Look Mick we all have our own views politically but personally l don't see either as good leaders of this country but for the voter the choice is not a appetising one wherever one looks so its then up to the individual who to put their cross next to but l suspect quite a lot of voters will be doing so with a heavy heart.

I think the point Chris was making was that the examples you gave were fluff and nobody really cares about all that. The decision we have to make is about which party will keep us solvent, and on that basis, the Conservatives will romp home.

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018229)

so tory debt is all fine labour one all bad? good to know I guess

The debt results from Labour's deficit. Do you not get that?

The austerity was needed in order to reduce the deficit, thereby prevent the debt from escalating to levels that would be calamatous for this country. Without austerity, the debt would be far more than it is now.