LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

I maintain that any referendum about fundamental change should require a minimum 60/40 vote in favour of change. Anything less isn't conclusive enough.

Or 60% of the electorate

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

I maintain that any referendum about fundamental change should require a minimum 60/40 vote in favour of change. Anything less isn't conclusive enough.

Or 60% of the electorate

Fair point. If you can't be bothered voting then you can't complain later.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1316333444654301184?s=21

Eek

So that's what they were teasing yesterday.

orraloon

So blonde bimbo sorry 'tech entrepreneur' Jennifer Arcuri finally admits to the affair with FatBo. OMG. Whodathunk?

But no worries, 80 seat majority, repeat ad infinitum.

shortfall

orraloon said:

So blonde bimbo sorry 'tech entrepreneur' Jennifer Arcuri finally admits to the affair with FatBo. OMG. Whodathunk?

But no worries, 80 seat majority, repeat ad infinitum.

Do you speak in this patois in real life Loon?

orraloon

shortfall said:

orraloon said:

So blonde bimbo sorry 'tech entrepreneur' Jennifer Arcuri finally admits to the affair with FatBo. OMG. Whodathunk?

But no worries, 80 seat majority, repeat ad infinitum.

Do you speak in this patois in real life Loon?

Aye, fairly 'at min.

briantrumpet

Not quite sure where to put this, but I thought that this was a good example of how a headline quote out of context is somewhat misleading:



And the actual quote:

Maybe it’s just the ones the documentary chose to focus on, but my word! I finally understand why people say the BBC is too Left-wing. I don’t think that’s true of it now, but I realise where the hangover must come from.

briantrumpet

More from The Telegraph, talking about the Union:

"When it comes to the Union, the Government has only two modes: complacency and panic. We will soon see ministers switch from the former to the latter.

Next May, Scotland will go to the polls and Nicola Sturgeon will seek a further term in office and mandate for a second independence referendum. The polls suggest she will win a resounding majority: Labour in Scotland remains an empty shell, while Tory strategists report that Conservative supporters, and avowed unionists, say they will vote SNP because “we have to keep Nicola”.

While the desire to break the Union motivates everything the Scottish government does, the UK Government does precious little to strengthen it. While Westminster devolves and forgets, the Nationalists dominate the Scottish state, purge unionists from positions of influence, bully critics into silence, and steer Scotland to an ever more distant relationship with England.

Remainers can blame Brexit and Labour can blame government incompetence fighting Covid, and it would be dishonest for those of us who support Brexit and the Conservatives to deny those factors in the current state of play. But support for Scottish secession has been growing for years: in 2014, the nationalists almost won their first referendum, long before Brexit and Covid."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/18/devolution-mess-fails-public-endangers-union/

TheBigBean

If you believe in self-determination, then I don't see why Scotland voting for independence is a bad thing. History is made up of countries trying to prevent self-determination, it is one of the things that the UK has done well over the last 40 odd years.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

More from The Telegraph, talking about the Union:

"When it comes to the Union, the Government has only two modes: complacency and panic. We will soon see ministers switch from the former to the latter.

Next May, Scotland will go to the polls and Nicola Sturgeon will seek a further term in office and mandate for a second independence referendum. The polls suggest she will win a resounding majority: Labour in Scotland remains an empty shell, while Tory strategists report that Conservative supporters, and avowed unionists, say they will vote SNP because “we have to keep Nicola”.

While the desire to break the Union motivates everything the Scottish government does, the UK Government does precious little to strengthen it. While Westminster devolves and forgets, the Nationalists dominate the Scottish state, purge unionists from positions of influence, bully critics into silence, and steer Scotland to an ever more distant relationship with England.

Remainers can blame Brexit and Labour can blame government incompetence fighting Covid, and it would be dishonest for those of us who support Brexit and the Conservatives to deny those factors in the current state of play. But support for Scottish secession has been growing for years: in 2014, the nationalists almost won their first referendum, long before Brexit and Covid."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/18/devolution-mess-fails-public-endangers-union/

So the author supports leaving the EU but preventing Scotland from leaving the UK?

rjsterry

I suppose we should admire the chutzpah of selling Kent lorry parks as 'good for jobs'. Must have had a couple of shots of botox beforehand to allow him to keep a straight face.

orraloon

Govie has a wee track record with the white marching powder so xxxx knows what nonsense spews out of his gob.

kingstongraham

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

Optics of being pro eat out and anti poor kids meals are not great

surrey_commuter

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

john80

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

One is a short term measure. The other is a permanent subsidy scheme. I prefer focussing in increasing peopes wages and reducing low earner taxes rather than giving out supermarket vouchers personally.

kingstongraham

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

One is a short term measure. The other is a permanent subsidy scheme. I prefer focussing in increasing peopes wages and reducing low earner taxes rather than giving out supermarket vouchers personally.

The vote was to extend it over holidays till Easter 2021.

pangolin

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

One is a short term measure. The other is a permanent subsidy scheme. I prefer focussing in increasing peopes wages and reducing low earner taxes rather than giving out supermarket vouchers personally.

The vote was to extend it over holidays till Easter 2021.

When is the vote on increasing wages and reducing low earner taxes? Oh.

veronese68

But it's alright as the MPs have given themselves another pay rise

Dorset_Boy

veronese68 said:

But it's alright as the MPs have given themselves another pay rise

Actually, no that's not true. The MP's have no say anymore in their pay, it is set by an independent body.

The cost of extending the free meals through the holidays is pretty miniscule and it seems petty not to extend it.
However, alongside this, more needs to be done to ensure the absent parent is contributing to the cost of their offspring, and as to why there seem to be so many single parents with 3, 4 or 5 kids.

Dorset_Boy

pangolin said:

kingstongraham said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

One is a short term measure. The other is a permanent subsidy scheme. I prefer focussing in increasing peopes wages and reducing low earner taxes rather than giving out supermarket vouchers personally.

The vote was to extend it over holidays till Easter 2021.

When is the vote on increasing wages and reducing low earner taxes? Oh.

Well those earning under £12,500 pa pay no income tax, and the effect of VAT on their expenditure will also be low as most of their expenditure is on zero rated and low rated items. The personal allowance has risen significantly over the last decade.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

I am optimistic that the value of propping the economy up is more valuable then the cost of servicing the debt over the entire period of said debt and there is no rational economics to suggest otherwise.

rick_chasey

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Why is "Eat out to help out" good, and meal subsidies for poor children over the holidays bad? Both are handouts guaranteed to go back into the economy.

Optics of being pro eat out and anti poor kids meals are not great

So. Yeah.

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1319172209403961346?s=21

Dorset_Boy

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

Was Rick born when we left the ERM and mortgage rates went from c.9% pa to c.17% pa within 9 months?
Rick do you think we will never return to the typical BoE base rate of 4-7% pa over the 40 years preceeding 2008?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

I am optimistic that the value of propping the economy up is more valuable then the cost of servicing the debt over the entire period of said debt and there is no rational economics to suggest otherwise.

You always allocate the £2trn to economically beneficial outcomes

pblakeney

TheBigBean

Dorset_Boy said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

Was Rick born when we left the ERM and mortgage rates went from c.9% pa to c.17% pa within 9 months?
Rick do you think we will never return to the typical BoE base rate of 4-7% pa over the 40 years preceeding 2008?

The 2060 gilt had a closing gross redemption yield of 0.74% last night, so on balance I would say no.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

Debt of 103% at it’s highest level since 1960, when interestingly growth was 6%.

Cost of servicing debt is the figure you should be looking at

I admire your optimism that it will remain at historic low levels for ever more

I am optimistic that the value of propping the economy up is more valuable then the cost of servicing the debt over the entire period of said debt and there is no rational economics to suggest otherwise.

Can we see the rational economics to support your optimism?