General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 89 of 270 < 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 12.06am
Strong and stable [Tweet Link]

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 12.06am

Strong and stable

[Tweet Link]

Mapletree Croydon 13 May 17 12.12am
Originally posted by nickgusset To be fair 2 of the H's have slunk off. Yup. Does feel surprisingly one sided at the moment. Come on Hoof, we know you are reading this. I reckon you must be like Roger Rabbit in the 'shave and a haircut' scene

Mapletree

Croydon 13 May 17 12.12am

Originally posted by nickgusset

To be fair 2 of the H's have slunk off.

Yup. Does feel surprisingly one sided at the moment. Come on Hoof, we know you are reading this. I reckon you must be like Roger Rabbit in the 'shave and a haircut' scene

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 12.39am
Originally posted by Mapletree Yup. Does feel surprisingly one sided at the moment. Come on Hoof, we know you are reading this. I reckon you must be like Roger Rabbit in the 'shave and a haircut' scene Seems the only arguments against the lefts (bar one or two exceptions) points are either 'Corbyn is unelectable' type stuff without basis, it's unworkable (without finding out whether this is true or not) or personal attacks. Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 12.39am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Yup. Does feel surprisingly one sided at the moment. Come on Hoof, we know you are reading this. I reckon you must be like Roger Rabbit in the 'shave and a haircut' scene

Seems the only arguments against the lefts (bar one or two exceptions) points are either 'Corbyn is unelectable' type stuff without basis, it's unworkable (without finding out whether this is true or not) or personal attacks.

Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am)

matt_himself Matataland 13 May 17 6.19am
Have Labour promised a free owl to everyone as part of their manifesto? Owls are wise and old, like Jezza, and form an integral part of any 'progressive' society. The arrangement will be costed by Labour also giving everyone a free kestrel, which would eat the owl and thus the 'costing' for the upkeep of the owl, after borrowed capital investment, would be nil. The cost of the upkeep of the kestrel will be eliminated by the provision of free baboons to everyone, whom in turn would eat the kestrel and thus the circle of provision continues. This is all costed. They tell us this but won't explain how becaus it would be 'misrepresented' by the nasty, right wing media and anyone who can count & has access to a calculator. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

matt_himself

Matataland 13 May 17 6.19am

Have Labour promised a free owl to everyone as part of their manifesto? Owls are wise and old, like Jezza, and form an integral part of any 'progressive' society.

The arrangement will be costed by Labour also giving everyone a free kestrel, which would eat the owl and thus the 'costing' for the upkeep of the owl, after borrowed capital investment, would be nil.

The cost of the upkeep of the kestrel will be eliminated by the provision of free baboons to everyone, whom in turn would eat the kestrel and thus the circle of provision continues.

This is all costed. They tell us this but won't explain how becaus it would be 'misrepresented' by the nasty, right wing media and anyone who can count & has access to a calculator.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 13 May 17 9.04am
Originally posted by nickgusset Seems the only arguments against the lefts (bar one or two exceptions) points are either 'Corbyn is unelectable' type stuff without basis, it's unworkable (without finding out whether this is true or not) or personal attacks. Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am) A fair reflection of what's going on in the national debate, not just the HOL. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 13 May 17 9.04am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am)

A fair reflection of what's going on in the national debate, not just the HOL.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 10.27am
Originally posted by nickgusset Seems the only arguments against the lefts (bar one or two exceptions) points are either 'Corbyn is unelectable' type stuff without basis, it's unworkable (without finding out whether this is true or not) or personal attacks. Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am) Yeah, never get that with Farage or Trump or May or Le Pen do you. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 10.27am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 12.40am)

Yeah, never get that with Farage or Trump or May or Le Pen do you.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

matt_himself Matataland 13 May 17 10.34am
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle A fair reflection of what's going on in the national debate, not just the HOL. Keep on believing that, if you wish. The facts are that the only weapon Labour has in this weapon is resorting to sectarian populism and then using pie-in-the-sky policies to try and discredit the Tories. For example, it is very easy to say 'energy companies should be nationalised because of the prices they charge customers'. The reality is that a renationalised energy sector would create a monopoly and there would not be investment on the scale of what is happening now or planned for the future, for example Bradwell B or upgrades to the distribution grid. A renationalised energy sector would be a legal nightmare to create and with the civil service bound up for the next five years with Brexit, it is hard to see how Labour could get just one small part of their manifesto completed, not to mention the other items that would also suck bureaucrats and money. Also, these plans aren't costed. Nothing I have seen gives a costing and it appears that Labour has used reversing future lowering of capital gains tax to many for several projects, meaning that hey have already committed a sum for their manifesto policies about five times over. The planned riaiskng of corporation tax will only encourage companies to find 'tax efficient' ways to hide profits offshore, and despite all the tough talk of 'no swertheart deals' with corporations he corporations and heir tax advisers are a heck of a lot smarter than a bunch of Momentum droogs and will easily find loopholes in the system and then exploit other loopholes when and if government cottons on to the first loopholes. The Labour manifesto is to me a transparent work of populism, written in he same vein as UKIP's manifesto of banning the burqa and introducing medical checks for FGM. Corbyn and McDonnell know they won't win, they are losing ground in Wales having lost Scotland, and have penned this regressive tome in order to give hemselves long enough in charge of Labour to enact their legacy, amending Labours manifesto so that left leaning candidates are in power for perpetuity. And before some smart arse asks, I do disagree with their policies. Nationalisation was a disaster in this country and nothing suggests to me that Labour could make it a success his time around, inward investment would cease completely, corporations would simply leave Britain and Labour would hand power disproportionately to unions, ensuring that we would become a strike bound country. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

matt_himself

Matataland 13 May 17 10.34am

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

A fair reflection of what's going on in the national debate, not just the HOL.

Keep on believing that, if you wish.

The facts are that the only weapon Labour has in this weapon is resorting to sectarian populism and then using pie-in-the-sky policies to try and discredit the Tories.

For example, it is very easy to say 'energy companies should be nationalised because of the prices they charge customers'. The reality is that a renationalised energy sector would create a monopoly and there would not be investment on the scale of what is happening now or planned for the future, for example Bradwell B or upgrades to the distribution grid. A renationalised energy sector would be a legal nightmare to create and with the civil service bound up for the next five years with Brexit, it is hard to see how Labour could get just one small part of their manifesto completed, not to mention the other items that would also suck bureaucrats and money.

Also, these plans aren't costed. Nothing I have seen gives a costing and it appears that Labour has used reversing future lowering of capital gains tax to many for several projects, meaning that hey have already committed a sum for their manifesto policies about five times over. The planned riaiskng of corporation tax will only encourage companies to find 'tax efficient' ways to hide profits offshore, and despite all the tough talk of 'no swertheart deals' with corporations he corporations and heir tax advisers are a heck of a lot smarter than a bunch of Momentum droogs and will easily find loopholes in the system and then exploit other loopholes when and if government cottons on to the first loopholes.

The Labour manifesto is to me a transparent work of populism, written in he same vein as UKIP's manifesto of banning the burqa and introducing medical checks for FGM. Corbyn and McDonnell know they won't win, they are losing ground in Wales having lost Scotland, and have penned this regressive tome in order to give hemselves long enough in charge of Labour to enact their legacy, amending Labours manifesto so that left leaning candidates are in power for perpetuity.

And before some smart arse asks, I do disagree with their policies. Nationalisation was a disaster in this country and nothing suggests to me that Labour could make it a success his time around, inward investment would cease completely, corporations would simply leave Britain and Labour would hand power disproportionately to unions, ensuring that we would become a strike bound country.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 10.47am
The main benefit from nationalising the utilities would be that there would be just one organisation to blame and moan about when the constant price rises continue and the poor service goes on. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 10.47am

The main benefit from nationalising the utilities would be that there would be just one organisation to blame and moan about when the constant price rises continue and the poor service goes on.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 10.48am
[Tweet Link] Doh!

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 10.48am

[Tweet Link]

Doh!

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 10.51am
Originally posted by nickgusset It's a subjective view though, others will see it differently. One thing I've been wondering, I keep hearing that Labour would allow unlimited immigration. Is there any evidence for this? Didn't immigration numbers go up over the past few years? I think we can all agree that the disastrous forays into different conflicts, particularly Iraq, are a driver behind the rise in immigration as people flee the likes of ISIS (who it could be argued only came into being because of the power vacuum and disorder following the war). talking of Prescient, watch this from 4 minutes in. [Link] He wasn't wrong was he? Why wouldn't they? They constantly tell us how wonderful and beneficial immigration is and that there would be no health service and the economy would collapse without it. So surely they should encourage more of it. What reasons would they have to not encourage even more immigration? As for immigrations figures going up in the last few years, of course they have, we have been in the EU with an obligation to accept unlimited numbers of EU migrants. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 10.51am

Originally posted by nickgusset

It's a subjective view though, others will see it differently.

One thing I've been wondering, I keep hearing that Labour would allow unlimited immigration. Is there any evidence for this? Didn't immigration numbers go up over the past few years?

I think we can all agree that the disastrous forays into different conflicts, particularly Iraq, are a driver behind the rise in immigration as people flee the likes of ISIS (who it could be argued only came into being because of the power vacuum and disorder following the war).

talking of Prescient, watch this from 4 minutes in. [Link]

He wasn't wrong was he?

Why wouldn't they? They constantly tell us how wonderful and beneficial immigration is and that there would be no health service and the economy would collapse without it. So surely they should encourage more of it. What reasons would they have to not encourage even more immigration? As for immigrations figures going up in the last few years, of course they have, we have been in the EU with an obligation to accept unlimited numbers of EU migrants.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.02am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Why wouldn't they? They constantly tell us how wonderful and beneficial immigration is and that there would be no health service and the economy would collapse without it. So surely they should encourage more of it. What reasons would they have to not encourage even more immigration? As for immigrations figures going up in the last few years, of course they have, we have been in the EU with an obligation to accept unlimited numbers of EU migrants. No actual evidence then. Quelle Surprise.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.02am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

No actual evidence then. Quelle Surprise.

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 11.06am
Originally posted by nickgusset No actual evidence then. Quelle Surprise. Do you dispute the fact that Corbyn and most Labour politicians repeat the mantra that immigration is a great blessing? Do you think immigration is a great blessings? Do you think there are any problems with mass immigration? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 11.06am

Originally posted by nickgusset

No actual evidence then. Quelle Surprise.

Do you dispute the fact that Corbyn and most Labour politicians repeat the mantra that immigration is a great blessing? Do you think immigration is a great blessings? Do you think there are any problems with mass immigration?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.11am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Do you dispute the fact that Corbyn and most Labour politicians repeat the mantra that immigration is a great blessing? Do you think immigration is a great blessings? Do you think there are any problems with mass immigration? Where is your evidence that Labour would have uncontrolled immigration? Not what you say the mantra is. Just hard evidence.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.11am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Where is your evidence that Labour would have uncontrolled immigration? Not what you say the mantra is. Just hard evidence.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.12am
Party saying you can't trust labour can't be trusted to do even the basics while advising people to do what they didn't. From private eye in 2014 Rather more serious than getting figures muddled in an interview yet there will be less coverage. Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 11.14am) Attachment: IMG_20170513_110907.jpg (97.66Kb)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.12am

Party saying you can't trust labour can't be trusted to do even the basics while advising people to do what they didn't.

From private eye in 2014

Rather more serious than getting figures muddled in an interview yet there will be less coverage.

Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 11.14am)

Attachment: IMG_20170513_110907.jpg (97.66Kb)

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 11.35am
Originally posted by nickgusset Where is your evidence that Labour would have uncontrolled immigration? Not what you say the mantra is. Just hard evidence. So what is their policy. All they seem to say is Labour "believes in fair rules and reasonable management of migration" and will not make "false promises" on numbers. Labour has never made any real attempt to control immigration and it never will. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 11.35am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Where is your evidence that Labour would have uncontrolled immigration? Not what you say the mantra is. Just hard evidence.

So what is their policy. All they seem to say is Labour "believes in fair rules and reasonable management of migration" and will not make "false promises" on numbers.
Labour has never made any real attempt to control immigration and it never will.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 13 May 17 11.46am
Originally posted by nickgusset Party saying you can't trust labour can't be trusted to do even the basics while advising people to do what they didn't. From private eye in 2014 Rather more serious than getting figures muddled in an interview yet there will be less coverage. Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 11.14am) Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't this more of an administrative fck up than a political one? After all, Whitehall gets its budget irrespective of who's in power so isn't this a stinging indictment of senior management in the civil service rather than anyone else? The real lol aspect, of course, is that the Tories have put the squeeze on IT contractors so much through IR35 regulations that they're going to struggle to take on the very people (the only people) who can unravel this mess for them. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 13 May 17 11.46am

Originally posted by nickgusset

Party saying you can't trust labour can't be trusted to do even the basics while advising people to do what they didn't.

From private eye in 2014

Rather more serious than getting figures muddled in an interview yet there will be less coverage.

Edited by nickgusset (13 May 2017 11.14am)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't this more of an administrative f*ck up than a political one?

After all, Whitehall gets its budget irrespective of who's in power so isn't this a stinging indictment of senior management in the civil service rather than anyone else?

The real lol aspect, of course, is that the Tories have put the squeeze on IT contractors so much through IR35 regulations that they're going to struggle to take on the very people (the only people) who can unravel this mess for them.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.56am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 So what is their policy. All they seem to say is Labour "believes in fair rules and reasonable management of migration" and will not make "false promises" on numbers. Labour has never made any real attempt to control immigration and it never will. Where do they say unlimited immigration?

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.56am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Where do they say unlimited immigration?

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.59am
Originally posted by Cucking Funt Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't this more of an administrative f*ck up than a political one? After all, Whitehall gets its budget irrespective of who's in power so isn't this a stinging indictment of senior management in the civil service rather than anyone else? The real lol aspect, of course, is that the Tories have put the squeeze on IT contractors so much through IR35 regulations that they're going to struggle to take on the very people (the only people) who can unravel this mess for them. Isn't the security of medical / nhs computer systems part of Jeremy Hunts remit as health secretary? Therefore it is political. It's happened on his watch. It's more than likely happened because the Tories were trying to save a few quid.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 13 May 17 11.59am

Originally posted by Cucking Funt

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but isn't this more of an administrative f*ck up than a political one?

After all, Whitehall gets its budget irrespective of who's in power so isn't this a stinging indictment of senior management in the civil service rather than anyone else?

Isn't the security of medical / nhs computer systems part of Jeremy Hunts remit as health secretary? Therefore it is political. It's happened on his watch. It's more than likely happened because the Tories were trying to save a few quid.

hedgehog50 Croydon 13 May 17 12.09pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Where do they say unlimited immigration? They wouldn't say that, would they. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 13 May 17 12.09pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Where do they say unlimited immigration?

They wouldn't say that, would they.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 13 May 17 12.11pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Isn't the security of medical / nhs computer systems part of Jeremy Hunts remit as health secretary? Therefore it is political. It's happened on his watch. It's more than likely happened because the Tories were trying to save a few quid. Of course the first reaction is to blame the politicians in charge of the affected government department but is it necessarily their fault that the heads of IT in a particular department are useless? Don't forget, the civil service is (supposedly) Independent'of government and makes appointments like this without reference to the minister - politicians don't normally even appoint the Permanent Secretary. The tradition is that the politicians are there to take all the credit but also to take the rap if things fck up. Hunt may be a grade A w@nker but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have even been aware of the imminent obsolescence of computer operating systems. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham*

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 13 May 17 12.11pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Of course the first reaction is to blame the politicians in charge of the affected government department but is it necessarily their fault that the heads of IT in a particular department are useless? Don't forget, the civil service is (supposedly) Independent'of government and makes appointments like this without reference to the minister - politicians don't normally even appoint the Permanent Secretary. The tradition is that the politicians are there to take all the credit but also to take the rap if things f*ck up. Hunt may be a grade A w@nker but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have even been aware of the imminent obsolescence of computer operating systems.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Page 89 of 270 < 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map