You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > General Election 2017
December 8 2023 12.34am

General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 222 of 450 < 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 >

 

.TUX. Flag 24 May 17 9.43am

Originally posted by Lyons550


False flag events are rarely (if ever) carried out by Government...as these are simply temporary custodians of the country...they're carried out by the Military and secret services.

Agreed.
I was trying to negate the red v blue stances here.

Do they happen...of course they do...how often is clearly open to debate...it's also suggested that they're used for matters far far bigger than a bloody election

I believe the election (to a degree) is an irrelevance tbh. It's more about the continued control through fear of the masses.

...however to consider a false flag event would be initiated on Children...and then by a British born civilian is beyond teh pale in my book.

As i said, it is unsavoury, but it should never be fully dismissed.

Surely if one were to happen it'd be by a nationalised individual from overseas and on a bigger scale.(?)

 


Buy Litecoin.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
VeganPower Flag Chesham 24 May 17 9.46am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The idea that you can tax the wealthy to the tune of 45 billion and still maintain investment.

The defence review and doubts over the commitment to nuclear deterrence.

The lack of a commitment to reducing immigration.

Yes, these are legitimate questions which would be foolish to gloss over.

The first is easily dealt with. Any proper investigation into how Scandinavian countries economic strategy operates will soon show the casual observer that a more equal distribution of wealth is actually good for business. Just not great for the 1% at the top of the pile. More cash in most peoples pockets is spent in shops and creates a virtuous circle.

Corbyn doesn't want Trident, but the Labour party as a whole does, so Trident will be renewed.

Labour are likely to be soft on immigration, that's true. Although Theresa has had years to be hard on it and not delivered

 


22 years eating a vegan diet. Perfectly happy and healthy on it.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 24 May 17 9.53am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The idea that you can tax the wealthy to the tune of 45 billion and still maintain investment.

The defence review and doubts over the commitment to nuclear deterrence.

The lack of a commitment to reducing immigration.

All of these points aren't accurate. The Funding Britain document which costs Labour's spending plans sets out extra revenue from income tax of 6.4bn. This is also adjusted downwards for uncertainty so is a conservative estimate. They also allow for 3.9bn reduction due to changes in behaviour.

The manifesto sets out a clear commitment to renewing trident. There is no ambiguity.

The manifesto clearly states that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the EU". The proposal is for a fair immigration system without arbitrary targets. They will crack down on unscrupulous employers who have migrant worker only policies and get away with paying below minimum wages and offering substandard working conditions. It would be a system based on needs of business but not giving businesses unfettered access to cheap labour. They would also set up a Migrant Impact Fund to target areas most adversely affected by migration. An actual sensible targeted policy to ensure we have sufficient labour but strain on public services are managed and improved. The Tories just have an arbitrary target.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 24 May 17 9.56am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

All of these points aren't accurate. The Funding Britain document which costs Labour's spending plans sets out extra revenue from income tax of 6.4bn. This is also adjusted downwards for uncertainty so is a conservative estimate. They also allow for 3.9bn reduction due to changes in behaviour.

The manifesto sets out a clear commitment to renewing trident. There is no ambiguity.

The manifesto clearly states that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the EU". The proposal is for a fair immigration system without arbitrary targets. They will crack down on unscrupulous employers who have migrant worker only policies and get away with paying below minimum wages and offering substandard working conditions. It would be a system based on needs of business but not giving businesses unfettered access to cheap labour. They would also set up a Migrant Impact Fund to target areas most adversely affected by migration. An actual sensible targeted policy to ensure we have sufficient labour but strain on public services are managed and improved. The Tories just have an arbitrary target.

Apart from the prospective Prime Minister wanting to get rid of it.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Y Ddraig Goch's Profile Y Ddraig Goch Flag In The Crowd 24 May 17 9.58am Send a Private Message to Y Ddraig Goch Add Y Ddraig Goch as a friend

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

All of these points aren't accurate. The Funding Britain document which costs Labour's spending plans sets out extra revenue from income tax of 6.4bn. This is also adjusted downwards for uncertainty so is a conservative estimate. They also allow for 3.9bn reduction due to changes in behaviour.

The manifesto sets out a clear commitment to renewing trident. There is no ambiguity.

The manifesto clearly states that "freedom of movement will end when we leave the EU". The proposal is for a fair immigration system without arbitrary targets. They will crack down on unscrupulous employers who have migrant worker only policies and get away with paying below minimum wages and offering substandard working conditions. It would be a system based on needs of business but not giving businesses unfettered access to cheap labour. They would also set up a Migrant Impact Fund to target areas most adversely affected by migration. An actual sensible targeted policy to ensure we have sufficient labour but strain on public services are managed and improved. The Tories just have an arbitrary target.

People can argue whether Trident is worth the money or the most suitable deterrent but all the time Corbyn is in charge they may as well remove that commitment. He has said on numerous occasions he won't use it

 


the dignified don't even enter in the game

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 24 May 17 9.59am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Apart from the prospective Prime Minister wanting to get rid of it.


PM not dictator. This point has been covered. He doesn't unilaterally set policy or make decisions. Trident would be renewed without doubt under a Labour government.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 24 May 17 10.02am

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

PM not dictator. This point has been covered. He doesn't unilaterally set policy or make decisions. Trident would be renewed without doubt under a Labour government.

It is indicative of the detachment from reality of the new left that they think a leader can hold views that are diametrically opposed to his party's published policy.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
VeganPower Flag Chesham 24 May 17 10.03am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

It is indicative of the detachment from reality of the new left that they think a leader can hold views that are diametrically opposed to his party's published policy.

Because he is a democrat and not a dictator

 


22 years eating a vegan diet. Perfectly happy and healthy on it.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 24 May 17 10.05am

Originally posted by VeganPower

Because he is a democrat and not a dictator

Well he clearly is not a leader in the real sense of the word.

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 24 May 17 10.13am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

People can argue whether Trident is worth the money or the most suitable deterrent but all the time Corbyn is in charge they may as well remove that commitment. He has said on numerous occasions he won't use it


I'm fairly sure he actually said he couldn't envisage a scenario in which he would use it and that he wouldn't be the one to use it first (not that he would never use it). By envisaging such a scenario I'm talking about him thinking it's unlikely to come to such a situation and his main concern is negotiation of peace and worldwide nuclear disarmament, which would be a significantly better scenario than the status quo.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 24 May 17 10.16am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Well he clearly is not a leader in the real sense of the word.

What like Kim Jong-May you mean?

I'd rather have someone willing to compromise on his own beliefs when setting nationally beneficial policy than the "dear leader" who is running an election as if this was a dictatorship.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CambridgeEagle's Profile CambridgeEagle Flag Sydenham 24 May 17 10.19am Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle Add CambridgeEagle as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

It is indicative of the detachment from reality of the new left that they think a leader can hold views that are diametrically opposed to his party's published policy.

Published policy is a fact. It's in the manifesto, which has been published.

We all know Corbyn isn't a fan of renewing trident.

The manifesto (publish policy remember) states clearly a commitment to renew trident.

QED. A party leader does currently (and therefore is able to) hold views "diametrically opposed to his party's published policy".

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 222 of 450 < 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > General Election 2017