The 2017 General Election

Labour went all out on electoral bribes and still didn't win and if the tories had mounted a barely competent campaign they would have got their majority. That's all by the by and it's no surprise to see the remain group jump on all this to try and manipulate a reversal of brexit they would be happy to see the country burn if it meant staying in their beloved EU.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Labour went all out on electoral bribes and still didn't win and if the tories had mounted a barely competent campaign they would have got their majority. That's all by the by and it's no surprise to see the remain group jump on all this to try and manipulate a reversal of brexit they would be happy to see the country burn if it meant staying in their beloved EU.

And the Conservatives don't bribe the electorate? because l think you will find both parties are culpable on that count.

Yes they do but this last time labour were clearly ahead in the bribe department.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Yes they do but this last time labour were clearly ahead in the bribe department.

That is what politicians do as many of the public for decades have always been susceptible to politicians using electoral bribes to win their votes at the ballot box whichever party it is doing it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So you link to an article by some random blogger to support that argument, Andrew?

That's the magic money tree that Labour was accused of believing in to spend a fortune to bring their wish lists to reality. Tell me you don't really believe that, Andrew.

You've only got to look at other parts of the world to see what happens if you just print money without a care. Fancy a Zimbabwean type of economy, do you?

You have fallen into the trap of ignoring an argued response and just resorting to a crude parody to represent your opposition.

Andrew's link had reasoning & references in support of the points he was making. Let's have your article with reasoned arguments that refute that position ..

[1andrew1]

Awkward!

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

That is what politicians do as many of the public for decades have always been susceptible to politicians using electoral bribes to win their votes at the ballot box whichever party it is doing it.

Indeed, although the Liberal Democrats probably were more honest than some parties in promising a 1p on income tax that would affect everyone working.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You may not like it but hard and soft Brexit have become accepted popular terminology.t

. Only by people that don't understand anything about everything

My understanding is:
Hard Brexit = leave the EU, Customs Union, Single Market.
Soft Brexit = leave the EU but potentially re-join the Customs Union and/or Single Market.

Cambridge University Press's definitions are:
Hard Brexit: a Brexit in which the United Kingdom stops being a member of the European single market and gets full control of its own law-making and immigration
Soft Brexit: a Brexit in which the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union is a close as possible to what it was before Brexit: In a "soft Brexit", Britain would be out of the EU but would retain strong economic ties, make budgetary contributions, and allow free movement of people.

Why would you vote to " leave" the EU but then be bound by their rules, regulations, the ECJ and pay in to the EU budget.

But not actually be in the EU to have a seat on the Commission, council or representatives in the EU parliament.??????


I think some people, which is unfortunately a lot of people, are really, really, thick. When it comes to this. Even now after a year of debate, they still don't understand.

Can they take their seats in Westminster and vote against the Government?[/QUOTE]

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have fallen into the trap of ignoring an argued response and just resorting to a crude parody to represent your opposition.

Andrew's link had reasoning & references in support of the points he was making. Let's have your article with reasoned arguments that refute that position ..

And a very enjoyable read it was too right up to the point when the author asks for donations. Quite the little entrepreneur isn't he? The views of a socialist with the acumen of a tory

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Households and economies cannot be compared from an economic standpoint. They are hugely different.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...at-people.html

Point #1 is just completely wrong. Scaling up financial goings on from the household to a country doesn't negate economic realities. It might delay their biting you in the backside by a decade or so but bit you will be eventually.
Point #2......at least when the private sector fecks up heads tend to roll (not always, admittedly)
Point 3......I'm not sure that many think that "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth"
Point 4....." The majority of economists recognise that severe spending cuts are harmful to the economy" ........mainly if, like Brown, you consider the public sector to be 'the economy'
Point 5......I'm not sure that many think that "Everyone maximising their self-interest promotes wellbeing" and the argument that "A look at the concept of information asymmetry demonstrates how wrong-headed the idea of humans as perfectly rational economic agents is" is a good idea for a left wing publication since the same argument can be used against communism and socialism
I could go on to points 6 through 10 but I'm losing the will to refute the arguments of someone who is clearly a mental defective.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

. Only by people that don't understand anything about everything

We'd have got away with fooling everyone that there was no such thing as a soft Brexit if it weren't for those pesky dictionary compilers!

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why would you vote to " leave" the EU but then be bound by their rules, regulations, the ECJ and pay in to the EU budget.

But not actually be in the EU to have a seat on the Commission, council or representatives in the EU parliament.??????

I think some people, which is unfortunately a lot of people, are really, really, thick. When it comes to this. Even now after a year of debate, they still don't understand.

Some countries like Switzerland and Norway do just this for good reasons. They have calculated that the disadvantages of doing so are significantly outweighed by the benefits. Both countries seem to be doing quite nicely.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Point #1 is just completely wrong. Scaling up financial goings on from the household to a country doesn't negate economic realities. It might delay their biting you in the backside by a decade or so but bit you will be eventually.
Point #2......at least when the private sector fecks up heads tend to roll (not always, admittedly)
Point 3......I'm not sure that many think that "House price inflation is good for the economy and creates growth"
Point 4....." The majority of economists recognise that severe spending cuts are harmful to the economy" ........mainly if, like Brown, you consider the public sector to be 'the economy'
Point 5......I'm not sure that many think that "Everyone maximising their self-interest promotes wellbeing" and the argument that "A look at the concept of information asymmetry demonstrates how wrong-headed the idea of humans as perfectly rational economic agents is" is a good idea for a left wing publication since the same argument can be used against communism and socialism
I could go on to points 6 through 10 but I'm losing the will to refute the arguments of someone who is clearly a mental defective.

[1andrew1]

Looks like Theresa May has found an entire party armed with Diane Abbott calculators to form a pact with!

An email that was worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the taxpayers of Northern Ireland and ignored by the Department of Enterprise has been obtained by BBC Spotlight.
In 2014, a whistleblower sent the email, to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
It warned them that the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) was seriously flawed.
In the email, the whistleblower is remarkably clear about where the scheme was going wrong.
The warning was not acted on and the scheme continued on. It was closed earlier this year with a likely overspend of £400m and potentially even more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-38229535

[Mr K]

Can't believe she's brought Gove back. It's like hiring an assassin to kill yourself.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Can't believe she's brought Gove back. It's like hiring an assassin to kill yourself.

Or to kill Boris or keep him distracted!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Kursk

And a very enjoyable read it was too right up to the point when the author asks for donations. Quite the little entrepreneur isn't he? The views of a socialist with the acumen of a tory

What has that got to do with the points he makes Or are you just trying to deflect attention here