I have equal respect for @Chizz, @Fiiish on one side, and @Dippenhall and @cafcfan on the other. A shame therefore to see them at loggerheads.
What swings me towards the Chizz/Fiiish viewpoint is this:
If there is one thing we ought to have learnt in the last 30 years is that if you ask ordinary working people to put their future wellbeing in the hands of the UK financial services industry, they will be done like kippers. I think its Ok to have top ups from the private sector for people like you two who are smart enough both to see the value of putting your money away and probably to avoid the worst excesses. But to insist the mass of ordinary people depend on private contingency, well; I guess it depends on whether you think we should have a society more like the USA or like Germany. No prizes for guessing where my vote goes.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
You can choose between an amazing equal society where everyone is nice to each other all the time or one that's not. You're obviously a horrible selfish person if you don't vote for the nice one.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
Of course they would do it. And it is bloody needed IMO.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
You can choose between an amazing equal society where everyone is nice to each other all the time or one that's not. You're obviously a horrible selfish person if you don't vote for the nice one.
- socialist logic.
You can choose between being rich and responsible, or being taxed £45bn pounds. If you choose the latter you're an idiot.
Regardless of May or the BBC, all Abbott had to do was know what the costs of employing 10000 more police would be and where it was gonna come from (Clamp down on corporation tax dodgers no doubt). On a day when she was having "6 interviews" leading up to a general erection, I'd have though the perspective Home Secretary would have these fundamental figures ready to throw out at the drop of a hat, I don't even think she forgot, she didn't seem to knew them in the first place.
Strikes me as lazy
Didn't she get them right in the other 5 though?
What about May failing to prepare for her Brexit meeting with the EU leaders that left them utterly flabbergasted as to how little she knew of the coming procress? Is that not just laziness but dangerous incompetence?
These are claims that have been "leaked" by a source. What did she actually say or misinterpreted? Or has she just rustled a few feathers? We are effectively in a divorce from the EU. Divorces are messy and things are said out of anger and frustration.
I am sure that to some extent the EU is adopting public positions. Well so is May. She has branded this a Brexit election. However, I am convinced that underpinning the leak is a genuine story about UK unpreparedness, and failure to understand continental European politics. Possibly you are a subscriber to the FT. If so, or can get at it, I recommend the three part series of articles "Brexit by timetable" by David Allen Green. If you read that you will understand why I wasn't at all surprised to hear Juncker and co.'s reported comments.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
I'm sure you understood the point I made. It's this: if increasing the numbers of police is important to you, you can choose to vote for a party with that stated aim or you can choose to vote for parties that have not stated that aim.
I don't know (and don't particularly care) whether you think there should be more (or fewer) police, but if you were of the opinion that there should be more, which party would you vote for?
May's latest outburst is pretty bizarre, I'm sure all of the ultra Brexiteers will tell us it's part of the negotiation master plan but I wonder if some who were just slightly in favour of Brexit are now starting to realise how badly this is going to go with May leading the negotiations.
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
I won't forget that it would cost £500m to hire the 10,000, who pays for them after that? (Already £200m more than labour said)
It's good that you won't forget it. Because then, if police numbers is important to you, you can choose between the party that has pledged to recruit 10,000 more police and the parties that haven't.
Pledging it and putting it into practice are a country mile apart
I'm sure you understood the point I made. It's this: if increasing the numbers of police is important to you, you can choose to vote for a party with that stated aim or you can choose to vote for parties that have not stated that aim.
I don't know (and don't particularly care) whether you think there should be more (or fewer) police, but if you were of the opinion that there should be more, which party would you vote for?
Whatever I wanted, it doesn't mean that I believe a party will deliver it, even if they have pledged it.
I do not understand Teresa Mays stance. She attacks the EU officials saying they are trying to effect the election result. Odd she is fighting the election on being a strong Brexit negotiator therefore the EU being tough is what she wants. They are helping her not hurting her election chances.
I do not understand Teresa Mays stance. She attacks the EU officials saying they are trying to effect the election result. Odd she is fighting the election on being a strong Brexit negotiator therefore the EU being tough is what she wants. They are helping her not hurting her election chances.
It was also May's choice to trigger article 50 at the end of March and then call a snap general election in April - it's her choice to do both of these things at the same time.
She is a joke - what the EU are doing is what we knew they would do - we need somebody who knows what they are doing in negotiations and realises the consequences of getting it wrong. May would be a complete disaster - I fear we are walking into that disaster.
I do not understand Teresa Mays stance. She attacks the EU officials saying they are trying to effect the election result. Odd she is fighting the election on being a strong Brexit negotiator therefore the EU being tough is what she wants. They are helping her not hurting her election chances.
It was also May's choice to trigger article 50 at the end of March and then call a snap general election in April - it's her choice to do both of these things at the same time.
Yes, but what you're obviously missing is that it's about being strong and stable. Strong enough to make bad decisions. And stable enough to be able to keep making bad decisions in the future.
How many of these company's will shed jobs, move offices, move overseas anyway and will use brexit as a tidy excuse, i e good time to bury bad news. Banks by nature shed thousands of jobs each year by restructuring. Cant recall ever seeing a link to that though.
May is a typical Tory. Got her own way most of her life. An ideallic bubble of rural England, Vicar's daughter, married to an investment banker and controlling a party of more extreme versions of herself. All they want is the poor, the sick, the disabled to either be wiped out, or shut up and slope off into oblivion. They carry this attitude with them into every conversation, action, or deed that they do. Which means they have inherent ability to come across as dickheads. I can't stand them
May has given us no detail on which to base why she is the best person to be negotiating. Her line is that there is nobody better, but that doesn't mean she has any clue what she is doing herself, which is because she actually hasn't got any clue. What do we have so far? Brexit means brexit, and she can be a bloody difficult woman. Anything else to go on?
May is a typical Tory. Got her own way most of her life. An ideallic bubble of rural England, Vicar's daughter, married to an investment banker and controlling a party of more extreme versions of herself. All they want is the poor, the sick, the disabled to either be wiped out, or shut up and slope off into oblivion. They carry this attitude with them into every conversation, action, or deed that they do. Which means they have inherent ability to come across as dickheads. I can't stand them
She is stupid attacking Brussels - we have more to lose than them. Anybody who doesn't undertsand that is quite frankly an idiot! She is right though in one sense - Brussels does not want Britain to prosper outside the EU. I said as much prior to the referendum, did she not realise that too! The reason is pretty obvious. You have to be smart in negotiations, and flexible and that is going to give you more chance of a decent deal than attacking the people you are dealing with! She is just trying to send a message to all the voters who love us beating up Brussels. Winning the election seems to be a bigger priority for her than winning the negotiation.
The line has to be to try to align a deal with a deal already in place, such as the Norwegian one. That is what Brexiters were telling us prior to the referendum FFS! It would be much more difficult for EU negotiators to fudge that!
I am terrified of the consequences of this foolish woman's actions.
Re-May... On the local radio the other night (radio berks) they had an election phone in, 90% of her constituents slagged her off for her local performance . To be fair the interviewer asked a little bit about each caller to ensure there was a balanced view. As its bbc radio berks i was surprised this wasn't mentioned in the next few days.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/03/jp-morgan-jobs-uk-brexit-dublin-frankfurt-luxembourg
What swings me towards the Chizz/Fiiish viewpoint is this:
If there is one thing we ought to have learnt in the last 30 years is that if you ask ordinary working people to put their future wellbeing in the hands of the UK financial services industry, they will be done like kippers. I think its Ok to have top ups from the private sector for people like you two who are smart enough both to see the value of putting your money away and probably to avoid the worst excesses. But to insist the mass of ordinary people depend on private contingency, well; I guess it depends on whether you think we should have a society more like the USA or like Germany. No prizes for guessing where my vote goes.
Edit... No, it was the same day as the referendum result.
- socialist logic.
Tory logic.
What about May failing to prepare for her Brexit meeting with the EU leaders that left them utterly flabbergasted as to how little she knew of the coming procress? Is that not just laziness but dangerous incompetence?
These are claims that have been "leaked" by a source. What did she actually say or misinterpreted? Or has she just rustled a few feathers?
We are effectively in a divorce from the EU. Divorces are messy and things are said out of anger and frustration.
@agim
I am sure that to some extent the EU is adopting public positions. Well so is May. She has branded this a Brexit election. However, I am convinced that underpinning the leak is a genuine story about UK unpreparedness, and failure to understand continental European politics. Possibly you are a subscriber to the FT. If so, or can get at it, I recommend the three part series of articles "Brexit by timetable" by David Allen Green. If you read that you will understand why I wasn't at all surprised to hear Juncker and co.'s reported comments.
I don't know (and don't particularly care) whether you think there should be more (or fewer) police, but if you were of the opinion that there should be more, which party would you vote for?
Hardly anyone outside of this bubble though would be my suggestion.
And that goes for all of them
22.1 - Percentage of reception-age children in UK who are overweight or obese, swelling to 34.2% in year 6
Her line is that there is nobody better, but that doesn't mean she has any clue what she is doing herself, which is because she actually hasn't got any clue.
What do we have so far?
Brexit means brexit, and she can be a bloody difficult woman.
Anything else to go on?
The line has to be to try to align a deal with a deal already in place, such as the Norwegian one. That is what Brexiters were telling us prior to the referendum FFS! It would be much more difficult for EU negotiators to fudge that!
I am terrified of the consequences of this foolish woman's actions.