Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018548)

Meanwhile the lib dumbs are printing their own fake news papers.

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv...son-newspapers


The party mocked up some publications which looked similar to local newspapers in each area they dropped them, but people branded them “misleading”.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018548)

Meanwhile the lib dumbs are printing their own fake news papers.

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv...son-newspapers


The party mocked up some publications which looked similar to local newspapers in each area they dropped them, but people branded them “misleading”.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36018554)

Wtf is going on, this nonsense follows on from the tories fake fact checking twitter account and the labour manifesto page they set up, how much more does politics have to be corrupted before we say that's enough and start holding them to account properly, it's like the work of some amateur third world junta

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018558)

This is an absolutely standard Lib Dem tactic. They’ve been at it for years.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018560)

Oh, unlike the Tories and their 'fact check' twitter fraud. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018560)

Oh, unlike the Tories and their 'fact check' twitter fraud. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36018555)

Original article in the Times on red link for those who have access.

Well we all know what we think about polls, but this was the one to correctly call the last election and is also over 100,000 sample so must have some credence even though, as admitted, there is a +/-5% margin of error.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 36018561)

Neither Labour nor Tories have credible plans to manage public finances' - IFS

https://news.sky.com/story/general-e...estos-11872231

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018574)

Welcome to the world of fake news, Mr K. No need to call out the Conservative Party - they are all at it. You know what they say, fight fire with fire.

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:37 ----------



Yes, I saw that.

Additionally, the Telegraph has reported today that a Savanta ComRes survey found that more than a third (36 per cent) of Labour 2017 voters and 29 per cent of current Labour voters say they like the party but not the leader, while two in five (42 per cent) Lib Dem voters like Labour but not Mr Corbyn. While Mr Corbyn seems to be holding Labour back, Mr Johnson is adding value to the Tories. One in ten (11 per cent) of those intending to vote Conservative said they liked him, but not the Conservative Party – suggesting he has single-handedly brought in 11 per cent of the Conservative’s current voter group.

So much for those who didn't think Boris would be a popular choice with the electorate. I told you he would be - you heard it here first! :D

Incidentally, I think he will be even more popular by election day, particularly if Corbyn comes up with more spending pledges and more false claims about what the Conservatives plan to do when elected.

What these polls can't predict, of course, is how many voters will stay at home. Given Corbyn's standing with Labour supporters, it would not be surprising if a lot of his dissillusioned members stayed at home rather than vote for another party. That will increase Boris's lead still further.

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:47 ----------



We know the Labour Party would sink us into huge debt if they tried to implement all their promises.

Boris's spending plans are much more modest, and while the means of paying for what he has promised may not have been specified, he has pledged to stick within Sajid's spending rules. I dare say they are expecting to be able to get more tax receipts in with the Brexit bounce and the end to uncertainty.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018589)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018548)

Meanwhile the lib dumbs are printing their own fake news papers.

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv...son-newspapers


The party mocked up some publications which looked similar to local newspapers in each area they dropped them, but people branded them “misleading”.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36018599)

Delivered my share of these today. All clearly saying "Delivered By Liberal Democrats in the "Insert relevant area" Right under the paper name. Can't get more obvious.

Odd how this is the first time for complaints, despite all parties using this method of communicating. Obviously caused some panic somewhere. :D

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018604)

I suppose people will be grateful if they run out of toilet paper.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018606)

I’m always grateful to get free newsprint through the door. The kids use it when they’re cleaning their pets cages. :D

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36018632)

Week 4 and I'm still undecided.

Who should I vote for and why?

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36018632)

Week 4 and I'm still undecided.

Who should I vote for and why?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018634)

I'm afraid with our electoral system it's a question of who you don't want, and the best way of achieving that wherever you live. A vote for anybody other than the top 2 parties in your constituency is wasted, it's a crazy system that disenfranchises a lot of the electorate.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018633)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018637)

I'm not so sure the Tories or anybody else, will ever actually deliver Brexit. Trade talks will take years, during which time a lot can change. e.g. an outbreak of common sense taking place.....

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36018632)

Week 4 and I'm still undecided.

Who should I vote for and why?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018633)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018643)

You forgot that Corbyn will also cripple the economy, so that and his stance on the EU are two very good reasons for me to vote Conservative.

If this issue is not going to hike the Lib Dems into the official party of opposition (which it won't) I cannot think what it would take to bring this about. I can't see Labour sinking even further than this, but I suppose you never know.

Labour did bounce back over a period after Michael Foot. Maybe history will repeat itself.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018564)

BJ didn't think austerity was the right thing to do...

Speccy

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018589)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018646)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018649)

Not often I find myself on the same side of the fence as Johnson.

---------- Post added at 13:46 ---------- Previous post was at 13:44 ----------



We are already in huge debt! I’m not sure how 2 trillion is sustainable but 2.2 trillion after a wave of nationalisation is unsustainable...

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------



Conscience and decency doesn’t pay the bills or solve poverty.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018656)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018657)

It’s not what I represent, no. I’m not a member of any political party.

I don’t agree with your interpretation of events - I don’t believe Jews are unwelcome, unsafe or fearful. I think the press is inflating the issue as a stick to beat Corbyn with as a means to get poor people to vote on non-economic issues. As with nationalism.

Meanwhile rich people largely will vote Conservative for economic reasons.

Divide and rule.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018658)

Originally Posted by spiderplant (Post 36018632)

Week 4 and I'm still undecided.

Who should I vote for and why?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018659)

Thinking the state of Israel shouldn’t exist is a legitimate political stance. Given the number of civilians they kill on a regular basis arguable peace in the Middle East would be better served without Israel.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018659)

The chief rabbi considers himself a close personal friend of Johnson, so I’m not giving that much credibility.

I can go on Twitter and find Jews supporting Labour. So I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you suggest.

Thinking the state of Israel shouldn’t exist is a legitimate political stance. Given the number of civilians they kill on a regular basis arguable peace in the Middle East would be better served without Israel.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018659)

The chief rabbi considers himself a close personal friend of Johnson, so I’m not giving that much credibility.

I can go on Twitter and find Jews supporting Labour. So I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you suggest.

Thinking the state of Israel shouldn’t exist is a legitimate political stance. Given the number of civilians they kill on a regular basis arguable peace in the Middle East would be better served without Israel.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018658)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018662)

And the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah don't attack anybody? The Israelis leave people alone until Israel is attacked. Perhaps Hamas should stop launching attacks and the people of Gaza should stop supporting them.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018659)

The chief rabbi considers himself a close personal friend of Johnson, so I’m not giving that much credibility.

I can go on Twitter and find Jews supporting Labour. So I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you suggest.

Thinking the state of Israel shouldn’t exist is a legitimate political stance. Given the number of civilians they kill on a regular basis arguable peace in the Middle East would be better served without Israel.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018667)

The circle of violence continues forever without dialogue.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018669)

If Hamas were remotely interested in peace, they could stop the cycle easily. Israel not responding, would just produce yet more attacks from Hamas.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018670)

Would it?

Killing civilians only angers more families and radicalises further generations.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018704)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018706)

He must have been.memorable, you can't even remember his name ! Better than Boris isn't setting the bar high.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018637)

I'm not so sure the Tories or anybody else, will ever actually deliver Brexit. Trade talks will take years, during which time a lot can change. e.g. an outbreak of common sense taking place.....

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 36018740)

As Jo Swinson put it, we are at series one of a box set of 10 as far as Brexit is concerned. At least they are honest about spending plans, and get approval from the IFS. Cannot say the same for either Tories or Labour.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018745)

They are being alarmist about Brexit. Trade deals can take years, but the one we want with the EU should be relatively straight forward to negotiate, given that our exported products already meet their standards.

I'm not worried about the Conservative spending plans. They are modest compared with the other two parties, and the Conservatives aren't exactly reckless with the economy, are they?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018759)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018745)

They are being alarmist about Brexit. Trade deals can take years, but the one we want with the EU should be relatively straight forward to negotiate, given that our exported products already meet their standards.

I'm not worried about the Conservative spending plans. They are modest compared with the other two parties, and the Conservatives aren't exactly reckless with the economy, are they?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018770)

That statement is completely speculative.

Equally as we are 2 trillion in debt with the Tories and the coalition in power for 27 of the last 40 years, despite the windfalls of privatisation, I think it’s demonstrably laughable that the Conservatives aren’t reckless with the economy. That’s without even getting onto Brexit, which by any measure going will weaken the economy.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018773)

I'm calling absolute BS on this. I mean, I have to admire your brass neck for trying to average out national debt increases over the last 40 years in order to blame the Tories for it, but how about we introduce some actual facts into the debate.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...1&d=1575130174

When you look at where the significant increases in national debt have actually occurred, it's obvious that the one very significant change to the long term trend was spending initiated by Labour during the financial crisis from 2008 onwards.

Obviously the structural deficit that ensued meant the Coalition years saw that figure continue to increase, but then that gives the lie to those on the left that like to simultaneously blame the Tories for the size of the national debt, whilst also trying to claim austerity was never necessary.

In fact the only significant upwards movement in national debt under the Tories, that can be pinned solely on Tory economic policy, is the spike caused by our crash out of the ERM in 1992, and frankly in comparison to where we are now, that looks no worse than someone letting their Christmas shopping get a bit out of hand.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018769)

The Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, Bozza's promise that Brexit will be 'oven ready' sorted next month or even by the end of next year is another of his lies. Or maybe he's genuinely thick.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018775)

It’s 40 years of neo-liberal capitalist economics that has lead to here. Selling everything off helped massage the figures in the interim. But here we are saddled with all the debt and no more windfalls.

Your graph will also be skewed by changes in GDP, as opposed to considering the real terms value of the debt itself.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018777)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018781)

But would enter a transition period during which it would continue to follow all EU rules and regulations and continue to pay the same amount of money into the EU budget, and the transition would be due to end in December 2020.

So we would have left the EU, but still following all the rules and pay the same as before - is that like leaving home, but still sleeping in the same bedroom, eating meals with the family, and paying your share of the bills? ;)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36018779)

Inflation also skews the real-terms value of the debt - i didn't see you hurrying to make appropriate caveats to your bald figure of £2tn.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018759)

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36018769)

The Canada deal took 7 years to negotiate, Bozza's promise that Brexit will be 'oven ready' sorted next month or even by the end of next year is another of his lies. Or maybe he's genuinely thick.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018770)

That statement is completely speculative.

Equally as we are 2 trillion in debt with the Tories and the coalition in power for 27 of the last 40 years, despite the windfalls of privatisation, I think it’s demonstrably laughable that the Conservatives aren’t reckless with the economy. That’s without even getting onto Brexit, which by any measure going will weaken the economy.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018775)

It’s 40 years of neo-liberal capitalist economics that has lead to here. Selling everything off helped massage the figures in the interim. But here we are saddled with all the debt and no more windfalls.

Your graph will also be skewed by changes in GDP, as opposed to considering the real terms value of the debt itself.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018777)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018819)

No amount of pontification on your part will convince anyone that the debt crisis was caused by Labour. But I have to give it to you, you have a talent for attempting to convince us that black is white. You are not succeeding.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018781)

But would enter a transition period during which it would continue to follow all EU rules and regulations and continue to pay the same amount of money into the EU budget, and the transition would be due to end in December 2020.

So we would have left the EU, but still following all the rules and pay the same as before - is that like leaving home, but still sleeping in the same bedroom, eating meals with the family, and paying your share of the bills? ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018819)

No amount of pontification on your part will convince anyone that the debt crisis was caused by Labour. But I have to give it to you, you have a talent for attempting to convince us that black is white. You are not succeeding.

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------



That's right. Brexit will have happened once we start negotiating a trade deal. The remainers do seem to be very confused about this whole subject.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018821)

I’ll never convince you, Old Boy, given the frankly ridiculous depths you will go to in order to defend the Conservatives at all cost. It would be admirable, if it wasn’t so perverse, given your propensity to ignore all objective fact and economic data since 1979.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018824)

The majority of the electorate disagree with you and will be voting accordingly.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36018822)

But that couldn't be avoided if we want the breathing space. The withdrawal agreement is only for a year, so what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018827)

It’s not what was said..

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36018836)

Interesting piece in the telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-anti-semitic/


https://antisemitism.uk/caa-and-kcl-...semitic-views/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018844)

BJ telling fibs on Andrew Marr this morning, saying the Queen's Speech, which set out his plans for government, including a bill to prevent automatic early release of prisoners, had been "blocked by Parliament" - it passed by 16 votes...

Linky - 24th October 2019

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018844)

BJ telling fibs on Andrew Marr this morning, saying the Queen's Speech, which set out his plans for government, including a bill to prevent automatic early release of prisoners, had been "blocked by Parliament" - it passed by 16 votes...

Linky - 24th October 2019

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018852)

1) That was the speech as a whole, not any specific proposals which are yet to be put forward.
2) The election has cancelled that set of general proposals.
3) The need for an election has been the thing that blocked any proposals.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018853)

A rather perverse outlook on Parliamentary democracy, I’ll give you that. Especially as it was a Government Bill that led to said election.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018858)

Because of the blocking of Brexit by Parliament. What specific measures in that Speech have been implemented or turned down? Approval of the Queen's speech is usually a formality. Absolutely nothing is brought into law as a result of it.

Just completely ludicrous to suggest that Labour or the Lib Dems would be harder on criminals, especially terrorists.

A monitoring tag is only really useful after any crime. It might deter burglars or somebody hoping to get away with a crime, but it would hardly be a deterrent to a suicide bomber/attacker.

What specifically did he refer to?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018859)

It’s ludicrous to suggest that because Parliament didn’t back Boris and his Brexit deal they “blocked” the rest of his legislative agenda. He was free to introduce it as and when he pleased.

Are you suggesting we simply have elections every five years for a de-facto dictatorship? Accept one proposed bill, you must accept them all?

It sounds right wing enough for most of this forum to get behind, I’ll give it that.

What is ludicrous is to suggest that the current Government after nearly a decade aren’t responsible for law and order, nor the state of the economy. Convenient that.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018862)

You are the one suggesting that approval of the Queen's speech is the same as approving each and every proposal within it, which are fairly general at that point.

You claim that the proposal wasn't blocked.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018863)

And indeed it wasn't. The government decided to abandon it's legislative agenda over a single piece of legislation.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018864)

And that wouldn't have made a difference? Only 604 of the 650 MPs voted, so any further proposals might have been at risk.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018865)

So the Government didn't pursue it's agenda out if fear of losing. That's fine as long as it's phrased like that.

Some matters of course transcend party politics - so we will never know how that Parliament would have voted on crime any more than it would vote on the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Properties) Bill.

So say Parliament blocked is an out and out lie.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018866)

Exactly, yet you say Parliament approved it, they didn't. Nothing can be determined either way on the basis of the Queen's speech vote as it is merely symbolic.

It is the persistent blocking of the democratic vote and Brexit that led to the need for an election. If that blocking hadn't taken place, instead the proposals would've been in hand. Although it is unlikely it would've have changed anything. Too many of them swanning about as it is. There will never be an end to it, so get used to more attacks of various sorts.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018867)

Boris used the term blocked. That’s a lie on his part. You persist with it, knowing it’s incorrect.

His Government chose not to pursue his legislative agenda and vote for an election.

We really are through the looking glass here in attempts to defend the Conservatives at all costs.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018868)

They didn't block anything, but on the other hand they DIDN'T approve anything either, when you said they did approve it. The legislative agenda is to implement Brexit.
He said "amongst other things, not least, Brexit, and we need to get it done, so that we can move forward." Realistically nothing can happen with the Benn bill in the way.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018869)

Boris said blocked the legislation. That wasn’t true.

I didn’t say they approved anything. You are fighting your own straw man out of desperation to stick up for the Conservatives.



Under FTPA no such requirement exists. Please cease from misleading the forum.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36018870)

You been made a moderator?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018869)

Boris said blocked the legislation. That wasn’t true.

I didn’t say they approved anything. You are fighting your own straw man out of desperation to stick up for the Conservatives.

Under FTPA no such requirement exists. Please cease from misleading the forum.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36018844)

BJ telling fibs on Andrew Marr this morning, saying the Queen's Speech, which set out his plans for government, including a bill to prevent automatic early release of prisoners, had been "blocked by Parliament" - it passed by 16 votes...

Linky - 24th October 2019

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018873)

I agreed that Boris was making a misleading statement. That's an observable fact to any user of this forum with any semblance of objectivity left.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018876)

He added ",amongst other things, not least, Brexit, and we need to get it done, so that we can move forward.". That was the rest of the statement. That is why there have been references to a "zombie government".

Whatever legislative agenda had been in place, has been blocked by the Brexit blockage. Until that is properly resolved, nothing of substance can be implemented. It really cannot be denied that Remainers have effectively blocked anything and everything of substance being able to take place.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018871)

No, and moderator instructions are in bold.

However if people continue to lie there's a high chance the discussion will continue needlessly, and go around circular points. Are you advocating forum members misleading the forum? :confused:

An astonishing stance to take, frankly.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018877)

I don't care for his caveats or other add-ons. Boris chose to push for an election - indeed despite the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passing second reading.

It was a choice of this Government, and this alone, to push for an election. It introduced, and voted for, the legislation to facilitate it.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018878)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018878)

Er - Parliament as a whole voted for the general election by 438/20.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018880)

It's a tangible fact that the Government abandoned it's "bold legislative agenda" as outlined in the Queen's Speech.

Parliament didn't block the Speech itself or any hypothetical legislation on crime.

Each issue, I'm sure, would have been considered on merit by our esteemed Parliamentarians.

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------



Parliament as a whole did indeed vote on it, although had the Government whipped against it would have lost. The Government introduced and voted for legislation to abandon its agenda.

None of this adds up to Parliament doing anything with legislation on crime against the will of the Government. Or "blocking".

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36018883)

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36018890)

When did Boris say that Parliament voted against the Queen's speech? He used the term "blocked", which is correct.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36018894)

Well having read this entire thread I'm no wiser.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36018871)

No, and moderator instructions are in bold.

However if people continue to lie there's a high chance the discussion will continue needlessly, and go around circular points. Are you advocating forum members misleading the forum? :confused:

An astonishing stance to take, frankly.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36018902)

No they are not always. It is not forum policy to bold them, team members bold instructions, to ensure instructions are seen. But instructions don’t have to be in bold.

I saw your post, you have zero authority to tell anyone on here what they should post.