RugbyRebels

OptimisticJock wrote:

kk67 wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: looks like the SNP fluffers are out in force today.

Welsh born,.....lived my life in London and Liverpool.

Erm... congratulations/commiserations/Baz doesn't care

Delete as applicable.

I'm reasonably happy with my life experience. I realise it's not as extensive as you squaddies who've toured the world as empire colonialists.

kk67 wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Welsh born,.....lived my life in London and Liverpool.

Erm... congratulations/commiserations/Baz doesn't care

Delete as applicable.

I'm reasonably happy with my life experience. I realise it's not as extensive as you squaddies who've toured the world as empire colonialists.

He's toured the world's one party states, and is an authority......on their bars

kk67 wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Welsh born,.....lived my life in London and Liverpool.

Erm... congratulations/commiserations/Baz doesn't care

Delete as applicable.

I'm reasonably happy with my life experience. I realise it's not as extensive as you squaddies who've toured the world as empire colonialists.

then why are you trying to justify it (unprompted) to someone who's not interested?

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Pretty much this. Let's have an SNP manifesto with their plans for the UK as a whole and let them put up candidates across the country and then I'd happily have them in the leaders debates. Not that I want debates in the first place.

Fair enough. Don't be surprised, then, if the SNP response is that they are being shut out of what is supposed to be a UK election.

UK election is the key. Are they a UK wide party? It's not an anti-SNP stance for me. I say the same about Plaid Cymru, the DUP etc and I'd say the same if a South West Nationalist Party or Yorkshire Independence Party sent MP's to Westminster but had no UK wide platform.
In a nutshell, if you don't field enough candidates to form a majority government then why should you be invited to a leaders debate.

I do slightly struggle with the idea of UKIP, both in a general sense and specifically whether they (and the Greens) should form part of main leadership debate. My instinct is neither the Greens nor UKIP offer a serious manifesto that's likely to form part of an actual government of the UK, but that would almost/mostly apply to the Lib Dems, but they did stand in just about every seat last election.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Fair enough. Don't be surprised, then, if the SNP response is that they are being shut out of what is supposed to be a UK election.

UK election is the key. Are they a UK wide party? It's not an anti-SNP stance for me. I say the same about Plaid Cymru, the DUP etc and I'd say the same if a South West Nationalist Party or Yorkshire Independence Party sent MP's to Westminster but had no UK wide platform.
In a nutshell, if you don't field enough candidates to form a majority government then why should you be invited to a leaders debate.

I do slightly struggle with the idea of UKIP, both in a general sense and specifically whether they (and the Greens) should form part of main leadership debate. My instinct is neither the Greens nor UKIP offer a serious manifesto that's likely to form part of an actual government of the UK, but that would almost/mostly apply to the Lib Dems, but they did stand in just about every seat last election.

I'm not saying it should be the only criterion. I'd also like a min % of vote share. Not sure what that number would be. 1% above whatever UKIP were polling seems a logical number.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: UK election is the key. Are they a UK wide party? It's not an anti-SNP stance for me. I say the same about Plaid Cymru, the DUP etc and I'd say the same if a South West Nationalist Party or Yorkshire Independence Party sent MP's to Westminster but had no UK wide platform.
In a nutshell, if you don't field enough candidates to form a majority government then why should you be invited to a leaders debate.

I do slightly struggle with the idea of UKIP, both in a general sense and specifically whether they (and the Greens) should form part of main leadership debate. My instinct is neither the Greens nor UKIP offer a serious manifesto that's likely to form part of an actual government of the UK, but that would almost/mostly apply to the Lib Dems, but they did stand in just about every seat last election.

I'm not saying it should be the only criterion. I'd also like a min % of vote share. Not sure what that number would be. 1% above whatever UKIP were polling seems a logical number.

Based on the last election I'm pretty sure that would see the Lib Dems excluded, though based on the one before it wouldn't. This one, well with a gay basher in charge their popularity is going back up, maybe this is what they mean by liberal values

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I do slightly struggle with the idea of UKIP, both in a general sense and specifically whether they (and the Greens) should form part of main leadership debate. My instinct is neither the Greens nor UKIP offer a serious manifesto that's likely to form part of an actual government of the UK, but that would almost/mostly apply to the Lib Dems, but they did stand in just about every seat last election.

I'm not saying it should be the only criterion. I'd also like a min % of vote share. Not sure what that number would be. 1% above whatever UKIP were polling seems a logical number.

Based on the last election I'm pretty sure that would see the Lib Dems excluded, though based on the one before it wouldn't. This one, well with a gay basher in charge their popularity is going back up, maybe this is what they mean by liberal values

It's odd because of I had to have a guess which leader was gay, he would have been my first pick.

OptimisticJock wrote: then why are you trying to justify it (unprompted) to someone who's not interested?

Hang on, give me a moment,....nah I got nothing

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Fair enough. Don't be surprised, then, if the SNP response is that they are being shut out of what is supposed to be a UK election.

UK election is the key. Are they a UK wide party? It's not an anti-SNP stance for me. I say the same about Plaid Cymru, the DUP etc and I'd say the same if a South West Nationalist Party or Yorkshire Independence Party sent MP's to Westminster but had no UK wide platform.
In a nutshell, if you don't field enough candidates to form a majority government then why should you be invited to a leaders debate.

I do slightly struggle with the idea of UKIP, both in a general sense and specifically whether they (and the Greens) should form part of main leadership debate. My instinct is neither the Greens nor UKIP offer a serious manifesto that's likely to form part of an actual government of the UK, but that would almost/mostly apply to the Lib Dems, but they did stand in just about every seat last election.

In reality, only 2 party leaders have an opportunity to be PM (at the moment one of those is hugely against the odds) and it has been that way for generations. You could turn the contest presidential and have those 2 leaders at a debate, except we don't technically work like that, even if for many of the electorate the party leader is an important factor in deciding how to vote (or not vote).

So opening up the debate is the correct thing to do from a procedural perspective, even though there are dozens of political parties in the UK. Monster Raving Looney puts up a lot of candidates but no one is seriously suggesting that they should be on the debate - although it might make it more interesting!

For me, debates over vote numbers or MPs is a bit chicken and egg, as the publicity that a well argued TV debate could bring would boost said numbers for smaller parties. Im not sure that I have the answers any more than anyone else, except to state that comparisons to other countries aren't necessarily useful as we don't have a directly elected PM or President.

And having only 2 parties in with a chance of forming a government is a direct consequence of FPP. It's one of the reasons I favour a proportional approach

So, Zac Goldsmith is to run as the Conservative candidate for Richmond Park. Not sure which is more hilarious, his sudden u-turn over his disgust at the govt giving the green light for the third runway at Heathrow or the fact he thinks he stands a chance at winning given the recent by-election result and the fact he's a Brexiteer.

Still it seems pending news from the court on the government failing to publish their plans on air pollution. It really is the shittier part of how politicians behave to not publish a report in over 5 years and then claim they can't publish now due to an election as they seek to avoid being held to account by the voters for what their plans (if any) are. And atop the government's failings on pollution, which is being shown all the time to have still more serious health issues, they're seemingly going to sail through the election with barely a mention of the third runway at Heathrow, about our energy plans, about the steel industry, partly that's the fault of the most pathetic opposition party I've seen in this country, but in such as delaying yet again the air pollution strategy the Tories really are channeling their inner Sir Humphrey, the mealy-mouthed morceaux de merde

Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable

Has it been drilled into us enough yet?

Zhivago wrote:Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable

Has it been drilled into us enough yet?

Lynton Crosby says no.

The strong and stable line is working really well - for Labour, who have had a pretty decent week. A lot of what they are saying is striking a chord. They at least are talking about domestic issues and offering policy. So far, the Tories have offered up nothing.

May is so obviously 2nd rate that she is being stage managed to the nth degree. its abundantly clear why she didnt want to take part in the TV debates.

The polls have narrowed. A landslide doesnt look quite the certainty it did a week ago.

Now, it could all change. The Tories have plenty to attack Corbyn and McDonnell with and that will come into play before too long.

fivepointer wrote:The strong and stable line is working really well - for Labour, who have had a pretty decent week. A lot of what they are saying is striking a chord. They at least are talking about domestic issues and offering policy. So far, the Tories have offered up nothing.

May is so obviously 2nd rate that she is being stage managed to the nth degree. its abundantly clear why she didnt want to take part in the TV debates.

The polls have narrowed. A landslide doesnt look quite the certainty it did a week ago.

Now, it could all change. The Tories have plenty to attack Corbyn and McDonnell with and that will come into play before too long.

Yep. Those attacks will be held back until the end and we know those attacks stick.

The tories won't mind the polls narrowing at this poont. Their biggest enemy at the moment is complacency.

On the off chance that Glorious Leader™ stops looking a blithering idiot and the Tories actually show any sort of concern we'll start to see lots of JC's support of the IRA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Theresa with a masterclass in diplomacy, totally dismissing the reports of a difficult meeting over brexit as Brussels gossip.

This may play well with the section of the electorate who will only ever vote tory anyway, but is hardly likely to help when the brexit negotiations start in earnest.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable
Strong and Stable

Has it been drilled into us enough yet?

Lynton Crosby says no.

Of course they're going to play that one. A variation of it's worked the last several elections they've had a hand in across the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Shit, that's pretty much the exact slogan the Gnats here used in 2014 against a similarly dysfunctional opposition party.

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Theresa with a masterclass in diplomacy, totally dismissing the reports of a difficult meeting over brexit as Brussels gossip.

This may play well with the section of the electorate who will only ever vote tory anyway, but is hardly likely to help when the brexit negotiations start in earnest.

It was always going to be this. The EU is too important to some European leaders to let practical stuff like economics get in the way. This is all about punishing Britain for leaving and sending a clear message to other countries.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Theresa with a masterclass in diplomacy, totally dismissing the reports of a difficult meeting over brexit as Brussels gossip.

This may play well with the section of the electorate who will only ever vote tory anyway, but is hardly likely to help when the brexit negotiations start in earnest.

It was always going to be this. The EU is too important to some European leaders to let practical stuff like economics get in the way. This is all about punishing Britain for leaving and sending a clear message to other countries.

Two scenarios:
A) Brexit and EU reforms
B) Brexit and EU disintegrates

Which one is better economically?

It's fair to say that if Brexit goes fine, and Britain keeps its perks, then it reduces the point of being in the EU... And B is a dangerous possibility.

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39770328

Theresa with a masterclass in diplomacy, totally dismissing the reports of a difficult meeting over brexit as Brussels gossip.

This may play well with the section of the electorate who will only ever vote tory anyway, but is hardly likely to help when the brexit negotiations start in earnest.

It was always going to be this. The EU is too important to some European leaders to let practical stuff like economics get in the way. This is all about punishing Britain for leaving and sending a clear message to other countries.

Who does the economics of Brexit hurt? Us certainly, Germany certainly, and Ireland, after that the others may stand to gain as much as they lose depending on the deal, so for 25/27 countries this could easily be about the economics, and this will be much more about the various member states than the EU politicos

So, the British media continue to undermine the Labour General Election campaign.

This time, by allowing Dianne Abbott to speak. I leave this transcript from her interview on LBC this morning for your enlightenment.

Nick Ferrari: So how much would 10,000 police officers cost?

Diane Abbott: Well, erm... if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four-year period, we believe it'll be about £300,000.

Nick Ferrari: £300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?

Diane Abbott: Haha, no. I mean, sorry...

Nick Ferrari: How much will they cost?

Diane Abbott: They will cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million.

Nick Ferrari: About £80million? How do you get to that figure?

Diane Abbott: We get to that figure because we anticipate recruiting 25,000 extra police officers a year at least, over a period of four years and we're looking at both what average police wages are generally, but also specifically police wages in London.

Nick Ferrari: And this will be funded by the reversing in some instances I think the cuts to Capital Gains Tax, but I'm right in saying that since Jeremy Corbyn became the leader of the party, that money has also been promised to reverse spending cuts in education, spending cuts in arts, spending cuts in sports. The Conservatives will say you've spent this money already Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott: Well, the Conservatives would say that. We've not promised the money to any area. We've just pointed out that the cuts in Capital Gains Tax will cost the taxpayer over £2billion and there are better ways of spending that money. But as we roll out our manifesto process, we are specifically saying how we will fund specific proposals and this morning I'm saying to you that we will fund the 10,000 extra police officers by using some, not all, but just some of the over £2billion.

Nick Ferrari: The £80million is the figure we used.

Diane Abbott: Yeah.

Nick Ferrari: But I don't understand., if you divide 80million by 10,000, you get 8,000. Is that what you're going to pay these policemen and women?

Diane Abbott: No, we're talking about, erm, a process over four years.

Nick Ferrari: I don't understand, what is he or she getting? 80million divided by 10,000 equals 8,000. What are these police officers going to be paid?

Diane Abbott: We will be paying them the average...

Nick Ferrari: Has this been thought through?

Diane Abbott: Of course it's been thought through.

Nick Ferrari: Where are the figures?

Diane Abbott: The figures are that the additional costs in year one when we anticipate recruiting about 250,000 policemen will be £64.3million.

Nick Ferrari: 250,000 policemen?

Diane Abbott: And women.

Nick Ferrari: So you're getting more than 10,000? You're recruiting 250,000?

Diane Abbott: No, we are recruiting 2,000 and perhaps 250.

Nick Ferrari: So where did 250,000 come from?

Diane Abbott: I think you said that, not me.

Nick Ferrari: No, no, I can assure you you said that figure because I wrote it down.

Diane Abbott: What I'm saying about the costs is in year one, obviously, we're getting ready to recruit. But in year two, the cost will be £64.3million. In year three, the cost will be a £139.1million, year four, the cost will be £217million and year five, the cost will be £298million. And that can be amply covered by reversing the cuts to Capital Gains Tax.

Diane Abbott should be nowhere near government.