Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

Mind me asking at which part you think the implication American's should be more worried about the Jewish lobby is?

Says that Russian involvement isn't likely an issue in US elections.

 

Picks out the Jewish lobby as an example (rather than a different one) and highlights the possible influence they have.

 

Implication being that lobby has more power and should be looked at more than the Russian one.

 

Of course, having thought about it a little more it is quite a reach, Newsweek went in for sensationalism in a big way, and quite frankly only Farage knows what he really thinks on the topic...but why pick that particular lobby as an example in the first place? Or of the caller chooses it for you, why not try to deflect?

Edited 3 November 2017 by leicsmac

[Guest MattP]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would however be interested in the response were a Labour MP, for instance, were to point out the influence of the Jewish lobby similarly.

 

Quite frankly, I think their treatment of the Jews is something that the most hardline of left and right wingers actually agree on.

If a Labour MP has just said the words Farage said there in regards to American politics I don't think anyone would bat an eyelid, it wasn't a revelation.

 

Michael Portillo points out quite regulary on This Week that the Labour party could lose "Jewish Money" which the way it behaves - as far as I'm aware no one has ever complained about it. I don't think referring to the "Jewish Lobby", of which we all know exists in politics is heading into prejudice

[Guest]

I'm just glad we've got our own brexit expert in the form of a painter/decorator from Leicester. If we'd didn't have him I'd be worried!

 

'No deal' Brexit could add £930 a year to UK shopping bills, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/03/no-deal-brexit-could-add-930-a-year-to-uk-shopping-bills-say-experts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm just glad we've got our own brexit expert in the form of a painter/decorator from Leicester. If we'd didn't have him I'd be worried!

 

'No deal' Brexit could add £930 a year to UK shopping bills, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/03/no-deal-brexit-could-add-930-a-year-to-uk-shopping-bills-say-experts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Considering you only post rubbish to wind me up , you seem more upset about it than me.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Considering you only post rubbish to wind me up , you seem more upset about it than me.

Did I say all of what I post Webbo? No I didn't. You may think I spout rubbish but at least I go to the effort of regularly supplying links, graphs and other information to support my arguments. You just parrot the same rubbish, no matter what evidence to the contrary you've provided with.

 

I'm not she which bit of my last post you think is rubbish. Perhaps you could elucidate, providing evidence rather than conjecture to back up your points?

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Did I say all of what I post Webbo? No I didn't. You may think I spout rubbish but at least I go to the effort of regularly supplying links, graphs and other information to support my arguments. You just parrot the same rubbish, no matter what evidence to the contrary you've provided with.

 

I'm not she which bit of my last post you think is rubbish. Perhaps you could elucidate, providing evidence rather than conjecture to back up your points?

You supply Guardian articles, that's hardly evidence.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'm just glad we've got our own brexit expert in the form of a painter/decorator from Leicester. If we'd didn't have him I'd be worried!

No need to make it personal.

 

How would you feel if someone started taking the piss out of your financial situation and using it as an example as why we shouldn't listen to a thing you say on economics? 

 

As for the article, how anyone seriously pays any attention to these predictions is still beyond me, but if you feel better reading them to be more confident in your position then fine, but don't expect everyone to keep believing forecasts from the same people who have history for consistently getting things wrong.

Edited 3 November 2017 by MattP

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You supply Guardian articles, that's hardly evidence.

You could follow the links within in to the study.

 

The other day I presented you with an actual academic paper b and you just ignored it and struck to your usual line.

 

You've not interested in evidence. I don't really know what you are interested in. It's hardly with you being here as you're not prepared to discuss more than just your own view.

 

I may be pretty stubborn myself but I've given way on a number of occasions thinking it might result in a more open response from you but you don't appear to have any setting beyond blind tory supporter.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

No need to make it personal.

 

How would you feel if someone started taking the piss out of your financial situation and using it as an example as why we shouldn't listen to a thing you say on economics? 

 

As for the article, how anyone seriously pays any attention to these predictions is still beyond me, but if you feel better reading them to be more confident in your position then fine, but don't expect everyone to keep believing forecasts from the same people who have history for consistently getting things wrong.

+1 for the first part but you've really got to stop shitting on forecasts if you want us to take it seriously when you post them. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You could follow the links within in to the study.

 

The other day I presented you with an actual academic paper b and you just ignored it and struck to your usual line.

 

You've not interested in evidence. I don't really know what you are interested in. It's hardly with you being here as you're not prepared to discuss more than just your own view.

 

I may be pretty stubborn myself but I've given way on a number of occasions thinking it might result in a more open response from you but you don't appear to have any setting beyond blind tory supporter.

 and you're so open minded?

 

I've obviously upset you and I don't know why, there are others on here who rubbish you more than me. Now dry your eyes and lets move on, there's no need for this bitterness.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

No need to make it personal.

 

How would you feel if someone started taking the piss out of your financial situation and using it as an example as why we shouldn't listen to a thing you say on economics? 

 

As for the article, how anyone seriously pays any attention to this predictions is still beyond me, but if you feel better reading them to be more confident in your position then fine, but don' expect everyone to keep believing forecasts from the same people who have history for consistently getting things wrong.

As I've just said to Webbo, look beyond the article to the actually source material it links to. I'd love to have a sensible discussion that didn't just involved everybody refusing to budge an inch. I've done it. You're capable of it. I'm yet to be convinced webbo is interested in even considering any view that isn't his own.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

No need to make it personal.

 

How would you feel if someone started taking the piss out of your financial situation and using it as an example as why we shouldn't listen to a thing you say on economics? 

 

As for the article, how anyone seriously pays any attention to this predictions is still beyond me, but if you feel better reading them to be more confident in your position then fine, but don' expect everyone to keep believing forecasts from the same people who have history for consistently getting things wrong.

And yeah, fair enough on your first sentence.

[Rogstanley]

A government spokesman said: “While it is the duty of a responsible government to plan for all scenarios..."

 

Weren't the Tories slating labour not a month ago for doing exactly that re a potential run on the pound?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

 and you're so open minded?

 

I've obviously upset you and I don't know why, there are others on here who rubbish you more than me. Now dry your eyes and lets more on, there's no need for this bitterness.

You haven't upset me, I just find you really frustrating to have a debate with. I've said I'm stubborn too, but I do regularly either argue against the left or admit flaws in arguments. You just won't take anything on board. It just leaves me feeling like it's pointless having any sort of dialogue with you but I don't understand why you can't just be that little bit more open as we'd have some decent debates if you did.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

+1 for the first part but you've really got to stop shitting on forecasts if you want us to take it seriously when you post them. 

None of us should take any forecast that seriously, the only thing we know about them is they will be wrong, we just don't know by how much. 

 

If our prices seriously went up by 900 quid a year it would be because we have decided to implement pretty outrageous tariffs, it would be totally self-inflicted. 

[Izzy]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As I've just said to Webbo, look beyond the article to the actually source material it links to. I'd love to have a sensible discussion that didn't just involved everybody refusing to budge an inch. I've done it. You're capable of it. I'm yet to be convinced webbo is interested in even considering any view that isn't his own.

I do wonder sometimes if you forget you're on a Leicester City football forum.

 

If you want serious political debate then I'm sure there are plenty of other alternatives on the interweb 

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As I've just said to Webbo, look beyond the article to the actually source material it links to. I'd love to have a sensible discussion that didn't just involved everybody refusing to budge an inch. I've done it. You're capable of it. I'm yet to be convinced webbo is interested in even considering any view that isn't his own.

To be fair you can't get to that report without a subscription and the guardian's interpretation is bound to be a bit gloomy.

[boots60]

Welford Road rec.

Before the Man City game.

I'll hold yer coats.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I do wonder sometimes if you forget you're on a Leicester City football forum.

 

If you want serious political debate then I'm sure there are plenty of other alternatives on the interweb 

Yes that's true but come on, we've been talking policies for hundreds of pages, it would be pretty ridiculous to pretend nobody's interested that's regularly on here

[Innovindil]

Just now, boots60 said:

Welford Road rec.

Before the Man City game.

I'll hold yer coats.

Get ya handbags out! 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

A government spokesman said: “While it is the duty of a responsible government to plan for all scenarios..."

 

Weren't the Tories slating labour not a month ago for doing exactly that re a potential run on the pound?

They were slating them for planning for their own failures, almost an admittance they know the economics they will introduce will be a disaster.

 

The only thing they can do to plan for that would be capital controls and if people actually were educated enough to know what that meant they wouldn't go near the party at the ballot box. Imagine going back to the days of not being allowed to spend your own money where you want, frightening. Going through airport scanners again with 200 quid in your pants. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

To be fair you can't get to that report without a subscription and the guardian's interpretation is bound to be a bit gloomy.

Of course its gloomy, that's why you go to the source rather than just reading the narrative. Not sure what's happened when you're clicked but the Guardian doesn't have a subscription only model so you can get to it through the links in the text.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

"You want war?" #madlads #forthemany

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

You haven't upset me, I just find you really frustrating to have a debate with. I've said I'm stubborn too, but I do regularly either argue against the left or admit flaws in arguments. You just won't take anything on board. It just leaves me feeling like it's pointless having any sort of dialogue with you but I don't understand why you can't just be that little bit more open as we'd have some decent debates if you did.

You mentioned me in your post, I don't go out of my way to to interact with you.

 

Honestly, what response would I get if I posted pro brexit articles from the Mail or the Express? There are plenty of pro brexit studies out there that you'd dismiss without reading. I'd be ridiculed for posting them so what's the point?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

They were slating them for planning for their own failures, almost an admittance they know the economics they will introduce will be a disaster.

 

The only thing they can do to plan for that would be capital controls and if people actually were educated enough to know what that meant they wouldn't go near the party at the ballot box. Imagine going back to the days of not being allowed to spend your own money where you want, frightening. Going through airport scanners again with 200 quid in your pants. 

We're already done this one. You know damn well labour aren't planning for failures in their policies, they're planning for short term difficulties if right wing loving financiers get nervous when they first get in. This is what I mean about the level of disingenuous debate on here. We're not politicians so why do people take positions they know are false?