I’d vote for Nicola Sturgeon any day of the week if they had a national party. Scotland’s Tory as feck now anyway
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
They do have a clear conservative bias. The fact that Bojo decided to take the piss out of them probably hasn't gone down very well though.
So Boris' punishment for not having to come under major scrutiny from Andrew Neil is that he doesn't have to come under major scrutiny from Andrew Marr.
Johnson and his team are trying their absolute hardest to avoid substantial interviews where he is probed on more than just whether he puts jam or cream on a scone first and where he can't just resort to saying "get Brexit done" to every single question and you somehow think that it's punishment for him to not have the chance to appear on Marr?
What exactly do you think Johnson would have to gain from being interviewed by Andrew Marr that he wouldn't have to gain from an Andrew Neil interview?
Yeah, so the UK pays about average for what is a fairly average service. Other countries with similar spends produce better results because they don't fund everything under the sun and they don't embark on stupid IT projects or PFI schemes. The NHS could get a lot more value from its budget if it was run more efficiently. The amount of money it gets is not the main issue.
It's not difficult to nail this particular dismount. Boris doesn't like accountability or scrutiny - hence avoiding the channel 4 debate and hiding from Neil. Precluding him from lengthy interviews he likely doesn't want anyway isn't necessarily the terrible threat you perceive it as. You could even say it cheaply protects the BBC's reputation while offering the Tories an out. At any rate I'm pretty sure Tory HQ would take the quid-pro-quo of not landing the Marr interview in return for not having to do the Neil one.
Anyway I'm confident he'll do the Neil interview eventually.
What are you blathering on about?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The media don't have any real influence on elections - Labour's problems lie with the likes of Corbyn, not the likes of Murdoch.
Embarrassing for sure but she wasn't being celebrated for her nazi sympathies, but for her role in being the first female parliamentarian. Although I fully expect to be accused by Sweet Square of fancying Teresa May for saying so.
It says a lot that a UK Prime Minister won’t even answer the question ‘How many children do you have?’.
You can use terms such as seizing private property all you like but there's no evidence this is the case and that those assets won't still legally belong to the firm even if they're not accessible. These are asset-locked investments and there's many ways you can build up the shares.
The Dems are pushing for the same thing across the pond, in the case of Sanders his proposal was 50%.
Apart from your dividend point the rest are valid questions that will need answers during the consultation.
Do you have the same opinion of forced pension contributions and the recent automatic enrollment schemes? This is much less of a money grab than that was especially in it's original form.
Let's just hope no asks him what the naughtiness thing he's ever done is......
Yeah... I am sure the likes of the media and yourself would be just as happy with that excuse if it was the Labour party.
Imagine the uproar if Labour MP's were unveiling a statue to a nazi supporting Jew hater regardless of their other 'achievements'. All it shows that they don't actually care about racism or antisemitism unless it can be used as a stick to beat Labour. It's pathetic.
Not at all - the minimum wage was one of Labour's great achievements. The process for setting it should be independent from the government of the day though, as envisaged by the legislation.
Last edited:
That's just factually incorrect. Copied directly from Labour's manifesto:
I think the automatic enrolment scheme is a very good thing. It doesn't deprive anyone of their property - it sets a minimum level of pension contributions, much like a minimum wage.
If you believe that then you cannot question their economics.
Maybe he doesn't actually know.
No, what it means it Labour needed to find a way to put this story to bed so the spotlight can shift to the Tories and their own problem with racism. I don't think there's a chance of that happening until Corbyn goes.
But they have shown a quite clear Tory bias in separate incidents in the last few weeks. Just because they do this doesn't make that not true.
That's like someone throwing stones at a wall and then just one of the stones is instead thrown at a bottle and you going 'but apparently this guy is all about throwing stones at the wall as he's such a massive wall hater. Looking forward to your mental gymnastics to justify this".
Peter Sutcliffe killed 13 people but now he isn't killing people. Thought he was all about murdering?? Looking forward to the mental gymnastics to justify this.
I doubt it. The Labour membership are remainers but the Corbyn revolution is far more important to them, in my estimation anyway.
Not every journalist who works for the BBC is pro-Tory or pro-Johnson, but Kuenssberg clearly is. If you follow her on twitter her bias is clear and obvious, always questioning Labour's position with rational thinking yet leaping to the defence of the Tories and Johnson in particular without the same level of scepticism.
Ironically not even the first woman elected either.
That video of her watching Johnson speaking and having a beaming smile and laughing. So gross.
Any socialist leader will get the same shit as Corbyn has. Just like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar have been accused of it in the States... even Bernie has been accused of it and he's Jewish.
Maybe we just let the media pick the Labour leader for us in future... a nice right winger they can get on board with. Will save a lot of bother.
Or how about you don't choose a leader who is a walking closet of skeletons for the media to rummage in?
Does anyone remember the glory days of 2015, when the media was 100% impartial between miliband and Cameron?
If this is the standard there is absolutely zero problem of antisemitism with corbyn. None.
Suddenly The Nazi sympathising Torries are all Jew lovers.
Not celebrating Hitler for his genocide but his role in being the first the popularise the Chaplin stache.
Miliband was snapped in an akward pose eating a bacon buttie and it was national news for daysHe doesn't really though does he. When you consider things like how Boris repeatedly hired famous anti-semite and racist in general Taki Theodoracopulos to write for the Spectator and all the other skeletons he has. For anything Corbyn has done and been slammed for, you can generally find that Boris did something similar and worse. But there's feck all to be done when for example Boris is dodging debates left and right and then Telegraph come out with this frontpage headline:
Jeremy Corbyn dodges TV debates after disastrous Andrew Neil interview
When when you look into it in any detail you find out Corbyn has refused to go on the debates that Boris is dodging, for obvious reasons. TBF you probably don't even have to look into it to guess that would be the case.
The fact is the public get nearly all of their political information from the media and the media are well and truly crooked.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The fact that you're defending a Nazi supporter to help make your point says it all really. You're a disgusting anti-semite by your own standards.
Unless you're Jewish, I don't think it's your place to tell a group of people what to be or not to be offended by.
The mistake he's made is not to engage with Jewish leaders over the perceived problem, basically ignoring the problem, dealing with any issues slowly and seemingly with reluctance, further alienating the Jewish community and confirming their worst fears.
I personally don't doubt that Corbyn himself isn't racist, however that doesn't mean that racist ideas haven't taken root on the far left of the party due to their antipathy towards Israel, and the lack of urgency and arrogance with which Corbyn has dealt with the problem has kept the issue running.
To put the problem to bed he just had to say, "what are your concerns, this is how I intend to deal with them, do you think that's appropriate" at the very start and problem goes away.
Come to the conclusion a hung parliament is the best outcome.
Don't really want the policies of any party being implemented in full.
Better they all have to compromise with each other to get anything done.
Majority governments have generally been pretty terrible in last 20 years. Both Labour and the Tories in different ways.
Don't really want the policies of any party being implemented in full.
Better they all have to compromise with each other to get anything done.
Majority governments have generally been pretty terrible in last 20 years. Both Labour and the Tories in different ways.
Yeah man
And you have nothing to say. I rest my case.Yeah man
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law, and I rest mine.
The UK has what amounts to a unwritten constitution, hence the two 'big dog' political parties fighting it out for power, is the only thing that has a chance of working. The 'Will of the People' etc has nothing to do with it, as demonstrated by the failure to implement the referendum result.
Politicians in the UK do not want to know the 'will of the people', they tell the people what their will is. This is how the principle of an unwritten constitution works out by using precedence. If you are the only ones who have set precedence, since the days of King John and the MC, then you won't give that up. Almost all battles political or otherwise only really have a successful outcome when there are only two opposing sides, one wins the other loses and of course history is always written by the winners.
Three (or more) way battles occur when not everyone can be contained in the big tents of the opposing parties, this leads to mistakes, or to unintended consequences, e.g. vote for one thing and get another. It confuses friend and foe alike and quite often leads to nothing of any significance being achieved, especially when bold actions are required.
- Status