Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

Sorry Craig, but that's democracy. Why should somebody in Edinburghs vote count more than someone's in London? Almost as ridiculous as Mhairi Black complaining that a region with more inhabitants had more MPs representing it than another region with less MPs.

But such is the politics of the SNP, always phrasing as Scotland vs the rest of the UK (or more accurately England) when Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

In comparison Rees-Mogg and Johnson are saints. He met with terrorists whilst a lowly back bench MP, he wasn't there for peace, he was there because they had common goals and that was seeing the demise of Thatcher, he's a treacherous scumbag.

Can you share the transcript of the meeting please. Thanks.

I don't think you can either Scott so your opinion on it is as valid as mine, I have more respect for our servicemen seemingly.

LionsV2 wrote:I don't think you can either Scott so your opinion on it is as valid as mine, I have more respect for our servicemen seemingly.

I'm not claiming he said anything I can't back up though. Just making the point that you could say the same about any politician if it was in your interest to do so. I'm sure you do

I'm not claiming he said anything, I'm inferring why he was there to be pedantic.

LionsV2 wrote:I'm not claiming he said anything, I'm inferring why he was there to be pedantic.

But you'd make different inferences if it was someone you like, so what's the point?

I dislike him because of that inference not the other way round.

Margaret Thatcher met and negotiated with the IRA in 1981..

But that is okay I imagine because she is a Tory..

Corbyn voted for the GFA and condemned all acts of atrocity on all sides (C4 news)..

The guy wants a United Ireland so his sympathies are with the Catholic side ..The Catholics have been shafted since partition it has to be said.

Corbyn/ terrorism..is like equating Muslims that want Sharia law with 9/11.

You must do better Hammer..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Margaret Thatcher met and negotiated with the IRA in 1981..

But that is okay I imagine because she is a Tory..

Corbyn voted for the GFA and condemned all acts of atrocity on all sides (C4 news)..

The guy wants a United Ireland so his sympathies are with the Catholic side ..The Catholics have been shafted since partition it has to be said.

Corbyn/ terrorism..is like equating Muslims that want Sharia law with 9/11.

You must do better Hammer..

She was probably meeting with them because she wanted to see the demise of Thatcher, not to negotiate peace.

She was the Prime Minister it was her job and she was in a position to actually do something that benefitted the UK, not at all the same as someone wanting a solution that suited the terrorists.

What exactly has the Good Friday Agreement got to do with anything, it doesn't miraculously stop him from voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement previously.

Think the IRA thing is over played with corbyn, but understand the emotive response it generates.

I disagree with his politics and think he would be entirely unsuited to being prime minister.

LionsV2 wrote:She was the Prime Minister it was her job and she was in a position to actually do something that benefitted the UK, not at all the same as someone wanting a solution that suited the terrorists.

What exactly has the Good Friday Agreement got to do with anything, it doesn't miraculously stop him from voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement previously.

She negotiated with Terrorists.........At the same time she was condemning them and saying we will never bow down to them etc......

But she is a Tory so it is okay.

It has nothing to do with political parties; I despise Maria Gatland and it's shameful she's a member of the party whilst I was a Tony Blair voter for many years.

I also voted for Sadiq Khan in the mayoral election but that wouldn't suit your inane comment would it.

catchweight wrote:Corbyn is a genuinely decent guy, as much politics will taint anyone. I dont think he is PM material and his politics would be disastrous for Britain. He would have made a better social worker.

I agree with this.... Though how much he controls the party is up for debate.....Personally I think the more aggressive McDonnell calls the shots...

Apparently he had a major part in the June manifesto.....

Power can change people.... When Garfield was assassinated in 1881.... A much maligned, slimy, shady character called Chester Arthur became President and his Presidency ended up a  paragon of virtue.......Ended as a result of infighting between the progressives and stalwarts..

I don't think Corbyn is an idiot.......A little too left wing for me......But if I had to choose him or May it would be a no brainer.

#vincecable2018

I choose Venezuela.

LionsV2 wrote:

I also voted for Sadiq Khan in the mayoral election but that wouldn't suit your inane comment would it.

Thats the political party equivilent of 'some of my best friends are black'

Samo wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

I also voted for Sadiq Khan in the mayoral election but that wouldn't suit your inane comment would it.

Thats the political party equivilent of 'some of my best friends are black'

It's equivalent!

Doesn't really work as an analogy does it, I don't vote for a specific party, oddly you cut out the Blair bit but just having Sadiq Khan gives it that hint of race doesn't it.

LionsV2 wrote:

Samo wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:

I also voted for Sadiq Khan in the mayoral election but that wouldn't suit your inane comment would it.

Thats the political party equivilent of 'some of my best friends are black'

It's equivalent!

Doesn't really work as an analogy does it, I don't vote for a specific party, oddly you cut out the Blair bit but just having Sadiq Khan gives it that hint of race doesn't it.

Its got nothing to do with race, more to do with playing the 'I voted Labour in the mayoral election so that gives me the right to make baseless accusations about the current leader without evidence and no one can challenge me on it' card.

Admittedly Im reading between the lines but thats how it comes across.

And thank you for correcting my spelling. Cant learn enough in one day

They're not baseless at all are they and your inference is completely wrong, would help if you read the whole discussion instead of picking and choosing.

I have read the whole discussion and all I've taken away from it is:

"Corbyn did x, y & z"
"Can you prove that?"
"No, but you cant disprove that"

Seems to have gone the way of most discussions in this thread.

I've backed up everything I've said about Corbyn, it just so happens that people disagree. after all those involved with the GFA didn't know of any involvement he had in the peace process.

LionsV2 wrote:I've backed up everything I've said about Corbyn, it just so happens that people disagree. after all those involved with the GFA didn't know of any involvement he had in the peace process.

"What exactly has the Good Friday Agreement got to do with anything"

LionsV2 wrote:I've backed up everything I've said about Corbyn, it just so happens that people disagree. after all those involved with the GFA didn't know of any involvement he had in the peace process.

You were asked to provide a transcript of the meetings he had with Gerry Adams that 'prove' he is a terrorist sympathiser and you've so far failed to do so. So no, you havent backed up every point you've made.

I don't need the transcript but he's offering you free stuff so do stand up for the man, the youth of today are a stain on this country.

LionsV2 wrote:I don't need the transcript but he's offering you free stuff so do stand up for the man, the youth of today are a stain on this country.

LionsV2 wrote:I don't need the transcript but he's offering you free stuff so do stand up for the man, the youth of today are a stain on this country.

10/10 close the thread lads it aint getting better than that

Right well...

What do we think of mays energy price cap and housing plan.

Old people who need heating to stay warm are a stain on the country.

You mean old people who have worked for 40+ years as opposed to the self entitled youth who expect everything gift wrapped to them, that is of course specific to the Corbyn supporters, some of them have a bit more integrity.

LionsV2 wrote:You mean old people who have worked for 40+ years as opposed to the self entitled youth who expect everything gift wrapped to them, that is of course specific to the Corbyn supporters, some of them have a bit more integrity.

The respected old people (unless you disagree with them voting Brexit of course).

Scottrf wrote:Old people who need heating to stay warm are a stain on the country.

?

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Old people who need heating to stay warm are a stain on the country.

?

Parody. Too subtle?

Interesting You Gov poll..........on which Ideological group voted who at GE15 and GE 17..

2015

Left wing................................Con 5....Lab 65
Cent left..Center...cent right......Con 44..Lab 26
Right wing..............................Con 68..Lab 4

2017

Left wing................................Con 3...Lab 82
Cent left...Center...cent right.....Con 50..Lab 32
Right wing..............................Con 89..Lab 4

Pretty divisive between left and right but.....

Interesting to note Corbyn attracted more support in and around the center than Ed Miliband in 2015..........

Scottrf wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:You mean old people who have worked for 40+ years as opposed to the self entitled youth who expect everything gift wrapped to them, that is of course specific to the Corbyn supporters, some of them have a bit more integrity.

The respected old people (unless you disagree with them voting Brexit of course).

I admire them even more for voting for Brexit.

Ent wrote:Right well...

What do we think of mays energy price cap and housing plan.

I think the energy companies have been taking the piss for years with their prices. I believe they should be publicly owned and run on a non-profit basis. But Im an entitled youth who wants everything for free.

She can harp on about a housing plan all she wants but its really the discretion of the local councils. In my area we had about 10km squared of wasteland thats all been converted into about 1000 new houses/flats. Sounds great but its all privately owned and the smaller houses start at £200k Council could have invested long term and built new council homes to help the shortage crisis but rather sold the land for a quick buck.

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Old people who need heating to stay warm are a stain on the country.

?

Parody. Too subtle?

Just not very good.

LionsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:You mean old people who have worked for 40+ years as opposed to the self entitled youth who expect everything gift wrapped to them, that is of course specific to the Corbyn supporters, some of them have a bit more integrity.

The respected old people (unless you disagree with them voting Brexit of course).

I admire them even more for voting for Brexit.

Why? It was a terrible decision.

Putting young versus old there will only be one winner.

It was a great decision as far as I'm concerned hence why I'm such a fan of BoJo and JRM.

Samo wrote:

Ent wrote:Right well...

What do we think of mays energy price cap and housing plan.

I think the energy companies have been taking the piss for years with their prices. I believe they should be publicly owned and run on a non-profit basis. But Im an entitled youth who wants everything for free.

She can harp on about a housing plan all she wants but its really the discretion of the local councils. In my area we had about 10km squared of wasteland thats all been converted into about 1000 new houses/flats. Sounds great but its all privately owned and the smaller houses start at £200k Council could have invested long term and built new council homes to help the shortage crisis but rather sold the land for a quick buck.

Energy companies make about £120 profit per household - really the issue is the wholesale price that needs looked at and that comes from the national grid- which unfortunately trades on both the London stock exchange and New York, plus provides energy to Europe and USA I believe.

As opposed to a cap a guarantee you are on the cheapest tariff and guarantee prices come down when wholesale price does may well be more effective.

As for privatisation as I've said the profit is about 120 quid per household, that's in a competitive market.

In 2015 the costing for nationalisation was estimated at £185 billion. That's just the upfront cost not taking into account running, wages, pensions etc big tax payer burden to lower a bill by 120 per year.

Think it's just an easy suggestion to suggest nationalise it as a solution - not sure if it would work but I'm no expert on it.

Not sure people will build houses for no profit, don't get the obsession with council housing either.

Making it easier for people to get mortgages (deposit) would be helpful, if you can afford rent you can afford the monthly repayments.

Amazing decision. I just love our currency collapsing. And in exchange we get to negotiate to try and get terms only a bit worse than what we had to be part of the same groups.

Ent wrote:Making it easier for people to get mortgages (deposit) would be helpful, if you can afford rent you can afford the monthly repayments.

We already have that. You can get 20% as an equity loan.

Nationalising is an odd one, those advocating it seem to be quite anti government yet are voting for more government interference, there needs to be tighter regulations and an actual price cap. The cost of nationalising any industry comes at such a high cost it's not a viable option unless you want to see everyone taxed more, the usual retort to that is to just tax the top 5% but again not viable or realistic.

Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

LionsV2 wrote:Nationalising is an odd one, those advocating it seem to be quite anti government yet are voting for more government interference, there needs to be tighter regulations and an actual price cap. The cost of nationalising any industry comes at such a high cost it's not a viable option unless you want to see everyone taxed more, the usual retort to that is to just tax the top 5% but again not viable or realistic.

It could work for some things e.g. Services that have hefty subsidies from government. I think some of the railway lines fall into that bracket.

Fanciful to say things will be cheaper, more than likely prices remain the same and the "profits" go to the exchequer. That is just speculation to be fair.

Ent wrote:Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

Yeah it's just more debt though.

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

Yeah it's just more debt though.

Chuck in the lack of housing...............Things like negative equity and non fixed mortgages...

I don't like the policy.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

Yeah it's just more debt though.

Chuck in the lack of housing...............Things like negative equity and non fixed mortgages...

I don't like the policy.

I dunno. Like Ent says a mortgage on an equal house is probably 50% of rent. Helping people with deposit seems to make sense in that case.

Upping taxes on buy-to-rent to help give away more as a freebie might make it more affordable.

How can anyone be a fan of Johnson when he shows such casual and comfortable racism?

Ent wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:Nationalising is an odd one, those advocating it seem to be quite anti government yet are voting for more government interference, there needs to be tighter regulations and an actual price cap. The cost of nationalising any industry comes at such a high cost it's not a viable option unless you want to see everyone taxed more, the usual retort to that is to just tax the top 5% but again not viable or realistic.

It could work for some things e.g. Services that have hefty subsidies from government. I think some of the railway lines fall into that bracket.

Fanciful to say things will be cheaper, more than likely prices remain the same and the "profits" go to the exchequer. That is just speculation to be fair.

It's also dependent on always having a left wing government and potentially becomes a waste of money when the Tories or a Blairite comes into power and think about selling it off again