British Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world.
Please remember everyone has their own opinion

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:07 am

LMAO wrote:But either way, I'm correct in that mixed economies are what make the world go 'round and socialist elements are present in every major economy. UFGN also seems to understand this, but that's beside the point because we spoke about different things.


Maybe I misunderstood the debate, I thought we were discussing political systems ... the fact is you need capitalist economies - like Scandinavia and like the UK - these are required to produce the tax revenue for governments to enact social agendas.

A Socialist economy will never produce the revenue to implement and sustain social policies - if that's unclear just revue the last 2,000 years of history when has that ever worked?

If you have Socialism without democracy such as Stalin, Mao and a few others it very soon all goes to shit.

Equally if you have a Capitalist society without any social responsibility you end up with feudalism ... the US is trying that real hard.

The issue is that Socialism demands public ownership of production and distribution, in the 21st century that is simply impractical, you are guaranteed to end up being non-competitive and eventually bankrupt ... these countries all tried and failed China, Cambodia, Cuba, East Germany, Ethiopia, North Korea, Poland, Romania, USSR and now Venezuela proving that in today's global society it's a failed ideology.

What is needed is Social Democracy where a democratic capitalist society supports economic and social intervention for the good of all. In the UK that was once the Tories but they have moved progressively further right, for a while it was also Labour but they have moved progressively further left.

The Tories are now "promising" a more social democratic agenda - whether that's true or not remains to be seen ... Labour are now well down the route of pure Socialism with nationalisation of production and distribution front and centre ... maybe they can change the lessons of 2,000 years of history, but very few over the age of 35 believe it and I doubt very much they will vote for it in two weeks time.

UFGN just wants to post garbage and hurl abuse - he will receive a cut and paste response if he insists on quoting me, I just hope he stops.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Zenith » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:01 pm

LMAO wrote:
EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:Never lost an argument with you yet

Just joined the rest of the forum in rolling eyes at your same old same old


This is the UFGN idea of debate - make something up then claim it as true - add an irrelevant statement - finally sprinkle some abuse ...

Dumb as a stump ... and somehow even more boring ... best you stick to agreeing with your family, and stay out of serious discussion.

"no one approves of Trump" apart from the 63 million who elected him ... sorry stump I did you a disservice ....


1. That was me, not UFGN.
2. That was clearly said in the context of the black half of my family.

I think an apology would be in place here, EK.

UFGN by is by his own admittance is no saint in this, but if you get caught hurling false claims at someone, the least you can do is express regret for your mistake.

And to everyone else: enough of the whataboutery and ad hominem falacities.

- Respect the viewpoints of fellow members
- Stick to the point
- Leave room for leeway and a middle ground
- Agree to (respectfully) differ if the above is unfeasible
- Be the bigger man if someone fails to do the above

If you find the rules above too strict to adhere, don't bother engaging in the discussion and stop wasting the time of yourself and others.

Many football forums do not allow any form of political discussion. GW is quite unique in this aspect, but it's only workable if every participant puts in the extra mile.

Even though some of you disagree vehemently on the methodology, it's worth to remind yourselves that, ultimately, you all advocate for the same goal that is a more prosperous world for us to live in.
Image
User avatar
Zenith
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31416
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Gallia Belgica, 5 hours away from The Grove

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:41 pm

Well firstly, I'll call you out on medical bills, and I'm comfortable doing this based on what little I know on the issue. You can end up with substantial co-pays, yes? Big bills despite having insurance. You can end up bankrupt even with insurance, or at the very lesst, on the brink. This is madness. The Americans have been brainwashed in my opinion into accepting it. Lobbying and advertising has been used to normalise huge medical costs which are much higher than other developed countries

I am a centre left voter and thinker. I do not and never would support a purely socialist government. Again. Im calling you out on this. I dont appreciate disingenuous arguments and your angle on Scandinavia is exactly that. They have economies which are underpinned by socialist values. Their whole approach to life is underpinned by top class services and rights, and crucially a very high minimum wage. The latter makes visiting Oslo as a tourist a nightmare but thats beside the point

Sorry, you dont get to only give socialism credit for basket cases like Cuba.

Trickle down economy and supply and demand..... no, they are fundamentally different. Just because John needs to wipe his arse and Mike sells toilet paper, doesn't mean Sue is going to get that operation she needs unless the government has its spending priorities right and its tax regime right.

Currently if Sue went and bought a coffee in Starbucks the only way that would help her operation is if she kept the cup to piss in from her bed..... cos its not all about income tax, big corporations are getting away with paying f**k all and that is indefensible

On opportunity not being restricted...... just words pal, just words. Bright kids dont get the breaks they need often enough, and the obstacles are too great. Often schools are just not good enough, and it is extremely hard to make it to a good university from there.

Lastly, if you think having a charity food bank to feed someone in a rich country makes that situation acceptable, then seriously, have a word with yourself.


So you wish to ignore the fact that vast majority of American voters want medical insurance to be left alone. That is exactly my point about socialism., you guys always think you know best for other people and then work to make sure they comply. It is the essence of socialism in both ideology and practice.

My pointing out that Scandinavian social policies are underpinned by the most capitalist of economies is hardly disingenuous. It is factual. Please explain how you come to conflate economic systems with social programs. It is a common thread in your arguments. Comprehensive social programs only can be supported by a thriving economy which socialist economies never can fund over time. Not once in history. I mentioned not only Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and could have added Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the whole eastern block of Europe, many African nations and many central a south American countries beyond those mentioned.

So you claim Cuba is a basket case for other reasons than being socialist...what reasons exactly? Could you point out why all of these economies failed...don't bother I will tell you. Because socialism kills the human spirit and takes away the opportunity to make one's life better through individual choices and drive. The whole concept of socialism is antithetical to human nature, it is square peg being pounded into a round hole and when it does not work the elites don't change course or admit their ideas don't work so they get a bigger hammer in a desperate brutal effort to maintain power and their own ill gotten wealth.

In terms of "trickle down" you don't quite get the concept. Your world view seems to be to punish the job creators and the poor will thrive. That is simply not a defendable stance unless as you do, resort to conflating the two as above and using emotionalism rather than logic or facts. In order to tax someone they have to have produced something, the more they produce the more they pay in. Except that when you impose punitive taxation growth slows and thus taxable production slows. And not just that company, all of its suppliers, workers and supporting businesses also suffer and therefore social programs suffer. Funding the NHS is example number one. Delve back into 1960s Britain and US and learn what 90% tax rates did to our economy. Even the Rolling Stones left FFS. JFK understood this and greatly reduced US tax rates and the the economy boomed. Yes there is a balance, and in a democracy the citizen voters decide what that balance should be. In Bolivia they made quite the statement last week eh?

Taking advantage of opportunity is always down to the individual in the end. Life certainly is a lottery and yet everyone has obstacles to overcome. Always has been the case and always will be. Sure we need to make schools better, but throwing money at them is hardly the way to do so. Curriculum... basic maths, reading, sciences, parental involvement all are far more important than spending. In Britain spending on education has more than doubled in twenty years, yet by all measures results have not kept up. The same for the US. These are facts.

You can wag your finger all you like, but in every society there are the less fortunate for whatever reason. Don't go on some morality trip with me please, especially as you don't comprehend my comments.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Lee Dixon
Lee Dixon
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:05 pm

UFGN wrote:On opportunity not being restricted...... just words pal, just words. Bright kids dont get the breaks they need often enough, and the obstacles are too great. Often schools are just not good enough, and it is extremely hard to make it to a good university from there.


That all sounds like excuses to me. Clearly its important to get good grades and a good degree, but you don't HAVE to achieve those, to succeed in life. Personally, I messed around at school, left with bugger all and was going nowhere fast. However, I was born with drive and determination and used those attributes to claw my way to a reasonable place. Maybe that's why I don't have a great deal of sympathy for those that are lazy and workshy.
User avatar
Rockape
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:49 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
Well firstly, I'll call you out on medical bills, and I'm comfortable doing this based on what little I know on the issue. You can end up with substantial co-pays, yes? Big bills despite having insurance. You can end up bankrupt even with insurance, or at the very lesst, on the brink. This is madness. The Americans have been brainwashed in my opinion into accepting it. Lobbying and advertising has been used to normalise huge medical costs which are much higher than other developed countries

I am a centre left voter and thinker. I do not and never would support a purely socialist government. Again. Im calling you out on this. I dont appreciate disingenuous arguments and your angle on Scandinavia is exactly that. They have economies which are underpinned by socialist values. Their whole approach to life is underpinned by top class services and rights, and crucially a very high minimum wage. The latter makes visiting Oslo as a tourist a nightmare but thats beside the point

Sorry, you dont get to only give socialism credit for basket cases like Cuba.

Trickle down economy and supply and demand..... no, they are fundamentally different. Just because John needs to wipe his arse and Mike sells toilet paper, doesn't mean Sue is going to get that operation she needs unless the government has its spending priorities right and its tax regime right.

Currently if Sue went and bought a coffee in Starbucks the only way that would help her operation is if she kept the cup to piss in from her bed..... cos its not all about income tax, big corporations are getting away with paying f**k all and that is indefensible

On opportunity not being restricted...... just words pal, just words. Bright kids dont get the breaks they need often enough, and the obstacles are too great. Often schools are just not good enough, and it is extremely hard to make it to a good university from there.

Lastly, if you think having a charity food bank to feed someone in a rich country makes that situation acceptable, then seriously, have a word with yourself.


So you wish to ignore the fact that vast majority of American voters want medical insurance to be left alone. That is exactly my point about socialism., you guys always think you know best for other people and then work to make sure they comply. It is the essence of socialism in both ideology and practice.

I didn't ignore that at all, I very clearly stated that I feel the US citizens have been manipulate, almost brainwashed by advertising and lobbying

My pointing out that Scandinavian social policies are underpinned by the most capitalist of economies is hardly disingenuous. It is factual. Please explain how you come to conflate economic systems with social programs. It is a common thread in your arguments. Comprehensive social programs only can be supported by a thriving economy which socialist economies never can fund over time. Not once in history. I mentioned not only Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and could have added Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, the whole eastern block of Europe, many African nations and many central a south American countries beyond those mentioned.

I really feel ive covered this extensively. Ive explained that I dont support pure socialism and ive made it clear that I instead support the Scandinavian model which focuses strongly on using the proceeds from taxation to fund excellent public services, coupled with laws which support strong personal rights


In terms of "trickle down" you don't quite get the concept. Your world view seems to be to punish the job creators and the poor will thrive. That is simply not a defendable stance unless as you do, resort to conflating the two as above and using emotionalism rather than logic or facts. In order to tax someone they have to have produced something, the more they produce the more they pay in. Except that when you impose punitive taxation growth slows and thus taxable production slows. And not just that company, all of its suppliers, workers and supporting businesses also suffer and therefore social programs suffer.

What I clearly alluded to was big business not paying taxes, especially corporation taxes. And before you cry me a river over job creation, I call bullshit on that. Example: Starbucks open 200 shops in London, the majority of which are either opened in outlets previously occupied by small businesses. Small businesses in the whole pay their fkin bills and if they dont the owners end up in court. Starbucks pay essentially f**k all and get away with it. They dont employ more people than the shops they've replaced or run out of business...... the net result is considerably less tax revenue than was previously earned from those sites. Now repeat that all over the country and with multiple companies doing the same as Starbucks


Taking advantage of opportunity is always down to the individual in the end. Life certainly is a lottery and yet everyone has obstacles to overcome. Always has been the case and always will be. Sure we need to make schools better, but throwing money at them is hardly the way to do so. Curriculum... basic maths, reading, sciences, parental involvement all are far more important than spending. In Britain spending on education has more than doubled in twenty years, yet by all measures results have not kept up. The same for the US. These are facts.

"Throwing money at them" is part of the solution. Thats how you pay for after hours provision, extra support staff and so on. Schools and colleges need investment to pay for after hours services and to support apprenticeships. Changes to the curriculum are also needed

You can wag your finger all you like, but in every society there are the less fortunate for whatever reason. Don't go on some morality trip with me please, especially as you don't comprehend my comments.

If you feel im on a morality trip because im asking you if its acceptable for working families to rely on charity food banks, then I'm very comfortable with my morality trip



Image
User avatar
UFGN
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 19442
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Est83 » Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:08 pm

Anyone else getting a boner for UFGN right now? No? Just me?

Wish I had the time to catch up from my last message, but I'm off canvassing this evening. Marginals, here I come!
Image


MASSA LIKES BIG!
Est83
Member of the Year 2010
Member of the Year 2010
 
Posts: 16083
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:18 am
Location: On the bog!

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:15 pm

Est83 wrote:Anyone else getting a boner for UFGN right now? No? Just me?

Wish I had the time to catch up from my last message, but I'm off canvassing this evening. Marginals, here I come!


Kick some Tory ass!
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 19442
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:33 pm

Now that is rich. Maybe you have been manipulated and brainwashed? But that is hardly likely in either case, people form opinions and preferences based on their own well being and experiences.

Starbucks is successful because customers like them. I don't, but it is once again down to supply and demand and free markets. Are you suggesting we ban companies like Starbucks? See, that is a socialist solution. Ignore that people are perfectly capable to spend their cash how and where they like. The totaliartina in you is showing... :smartass: Corporations obviously create both wealth and jobs and high taxes squelch that as well as reducing revenue for social programs. The examples are endless. But start with Ireland's recovery.

Can you explain why schools have declined so much while spending on education has risen each and every year then?

No I think you are on a morality trip because you are misinterpreting my point. It's not about thinking or feeling something is acceptable or not, it is about reality. Every society has those who thrive and those who do not. Food banks are a great example of those who have helping those who do not for whatever reason. We simply have a different idea of what true compassion is. I am all about charity and social safety nets. I know that creating opportunity and allowing the human spirit to thrive works, creating dependency does not. Socialism does the latter.

Three constants in life as we know it: Most people are good at heart. Life is not fair nor equal and never will be. One's life path is determined by the decisions we make and the obstacles we overcome.
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
Lee Dixon
Lee Dixon
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:59 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:Now that is rich. Maybe you have been manipulated and brainwashed? But that is hardly likely in either case, people form opinions and preferences based on their own well being and experiences.

Take away the anti-"social medicine" attack ads and the US health insurers $5Billion a year advertising budget and maybe you'll have a point.


Starbucks is successful because customers like them. I don't, but it is once again down to supply and demand and free markets. Are you suggesting we ban companies like Starbucks?

No, I very clearly just indicated that they should pay their f***ing taxes. Why would you go off on one about me wanting to "ban Starbucks"? Can you see how foolish that comment is? Explain to me please, HAVING READ WHAT I WROTE ABOUT STARBUCKS AGAIN, exactly what your problem is with it? I mean, I specifically, and in detail, debunked the myth of them creating wealth, and its like you haven't read it at all


No I think you are on a morality trip because you are misinterpreting my point. It's not about thinking or feeling something is acceptable or not, it is about reality. Every society has those who thrive and those who do not. Food banks are a great example of those who have helping those who do not for whatever reason. We simply have a different idea of what true compassion is. I am all about charity and social safety nets. I know that creating opportunity and allowing the human spirit to thrive works, creating dependency does not. Socialism does the latter.

You accuse me of misrepresenting your point and then go on to make exactly the same point. You worshiping at the ultar of Supply Side Jesus is not an explanation for just brushing aside this disgusting injustice. I reiterate to you again.... Working families. Rich country. Not enough money to eat. Something has gone wrong there and it is 100% the responsibility of the government to fix that problem



Three constants in life as we know it: Most people are good at heart. Life is not fair nor equal and never will be. One's life path is determined by the decisions we make and the obstacles we overcome.

I would never claim it is the responsibility of government to solve every problem for everybody. But to fix glaring injustices is fully their responsibility.


Image
User avatar
UFGN
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 19442
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby EliteKiller » Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:44 am

Zenith wrote:
LMAO wrote:
EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:Never lost an argument with you yet

Just joined the rest of the forum in rolling eyes at your same old same old


This is the UFGN idea of debate - make something up then claim it as true - add an irrelevant statement - finally sprinkle some abuse ...

Dumb as a stump ... and somehow even more boring ... best you stick to agreeing with your family, and stay out of serious discussion.

"no one approves of Trump" apart from the 63 million who elected him ... sorry stump I did you a disservice ....


1. That was me, not UFGN.
2. That was clearly said in the context of the black half of my family.

I think an apology would be in place here, EK.

UFGN by is by his own admittance is no saint in this, but if you get caught hurling false claims at someone, the least you can do is express regret for your mistake.

And to everyone else: enough of the whataboutery and ad hominem falacities.

- Respect the viewpoints of fellow members
- Stick to the point
- Leave room for leeway and a middle ground
- Agree to (respectfully) differ if the above is unfeasible
- Be the bigger man if someone fails to do the above

If you find the rules above too strict to adhere, don't bother engaging in the discussion and stop wasting the time of yourself and others.

Many football forums do not allow any form of political discussion. GW is quite unique in this aspect, but it's only workable if every participant puts in the extra mile.

Even though some of you disagree vehemently on the methodology, it's worth to remind yourselves that, ultimately, you all advocate for the same goal that is a more prosperous world for us to live in.


I had agreed with the mods weeks ago not to mention by name or respond directly to UFGN - that doesn't mean I won't reference his idiotic politics, it is after all a discussion forum, but we agreed no direct interaction ... however every to me he responds directly or names me I will call him out as a fool ... that's only fair if he's to weak willed to stick to an agreement ....

I've said my bit and I'll keep it simple - if he names me or responds directly I'll just post "f**k OF YOU BRAIN-DEAD IDIOT" childish I admit but sometimes when dealing with the thickest of thick planks it's the only way ...

He is welcome to disagree with my views as I disagree with his, big wide world room for all opinion, but as we previously agreed no direct interaction ... let's see if he can manage that this time.

and of course I apologise for the oblique referencing, trying not to call out UFGN by name as we agreed is hard and sometimes it screws up, but at least I'm trying to do as we agreed.

Ultimately we don't advocate for the same thing at all - I advocate for rewarding effort, the very basis of capitalism - he advocates for rewarding mediocrity, the very basis of socialism. One provides a better life for all those prepared to work for it, the other a free ride for those who don't. Where we do agree is the need for a social framework for the unfortunate, we just fundamentally disagree on how that's done.

Where he really winds me up is the lies and propaganda, if you have a point then evidence it, repeating a lie 100 times (the NHS is for sale) doesn't make it true, it just makes the poster look a bit of a dick.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby UFGN » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:22 am

If that is allowed to stand then every time he referrs to something ive written in his usual c*** way then I will sling every ounce of abuse at him

I won't tollerate this poster indirectly referencing me then getting away with behaving like a c*** twice, once with the initial bitchy comment and again with a snide response

And I wont tollerate him dictating his own behavior

If things carry on as they are we can stroll hand in merry hand to permanent bans if thats the way it has to be, but I wont be treated like a c***.

EK control your own behavior, and that includes indirect comments whether you like it or not, and I will control mine. If not, then this will not improve
Image
User avatar
UFGN
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 19442
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: British Politics

Postby Zenith » Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:16 pm

EliteKiller wrote:
Zenith wrote:
LMAO wrote:
EliteKiller wrote:
UFGN wrote:Never lost an argument with you yet

Just joined the rest of the forum in rolling eyes at your same old same old


This is the UFGN idea of debate - make something up then claim it as true - add an irrelevant statement - finally sprinkle some abuse ...

Dumb as a stump ... and somehow even more boring ... best you stick to agreeing with your family, and stay out of serious discussion.

"no one approves of Trump" apart from the 63 million who elected him ... sorry stump I did you a disservice ....


1. That was me, not UFGN.
2. That was clearly said in the context of the black half of my family.

I think an apology would be in place here, EK.

UFGN by is by his own admittance is no saint in this, but if you get caught hurling false claims at someone, the least you can do is express regret for your mistake.

And to everyone else: enough of the whataboutery and ad hominem falacities.

- Respect the viewpoints of fellow members
- Stick to the point
- Leave room for leeway and a middle ground
- Agree to (respectfully) differ if the above is unfeasible
- Be the bigger man if someone fails to do the above

If you find the rules above too strict to adhere, don't bother engaging in the discussion and stop wasting the time of yourself and others.

Many football forums do not allow any form of political discussion. GW is quite unique in this aspect, but it's only workable if every participant puts in the extra mile.

Even though some of you disagree vehemently on the methodology, it's worth to remind yourselves that, ultimately, you all advocate for the same goal that is a more prosperous world for us to live in.


I had agreed with the mods weeks ago not to mention by name or respond directly to UFGN - that doesn't mean I won't reference his idiotic politics, it is after all a discussion forum, but we agreed no direct interaction ... however every to me he responds directly or names me I will call him out as a fool ... that's only fair if he's to weak willed to stick to an agreement ....

I've said my bit and I'll keep it simple - if he names me or responds directly I'll just post "f**k OF YOU BRAIN-DEAD IDIOT" childish I admit but sometimes when dealing with the thickest of thick planks it's the only way ...

He is welcome to disagree with my views as I disagree with his, big wide world room for all opinion, but as we previously agreed no direct interaction ... let's see if he can manage that this time.

and of course I apologise for the oblique referencing, trying not to call out UFGN by name as we agreed is hard and sometimes it screws up, but at least I'm trying to do as we agreed.

Ultimately we don't advocate for the same thing at all - I advocate for rewarding effort, the very basis of capitalism - he advocates for rewarding mediocrity, the very basis of socialism. One provides a better life for all those prepared to work for it, the other a free ride for those who don't. Where we do agree is the need for a social framework for the unfortunate, we just fundamentally disagree on how that's done.

Where he really winds me up is the lies and propaganda, if you have a point then evidence it, repeating a lie 100 times (the NHS is for sale) doesn't make it true, it just makes the poster look a bit of a dick.

Again:
    - Respect the viewpoints of fellow members
    - Stick to the point
    - Leave room for leeway and a middle ground
    - Agree to (respectfully) differ if the above is unfeasible
    - Be the bigger man if someone fails to do all of the above

Many football forums do not allow any form of political discussion. GW is quite unique in this aspect, but it's only workable if every participant puts in the extra mile.

No more ifs and buts, this ends here.
Image
User avatar
Zenith
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31416
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:48 pm
Location: Gallia Belgica, 5 hours away from The Grove

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:34 am

No more ifs and buts, this ends here.


Quite right, let’s move on. I see the pound hit it’s highest level against the euro last night. That’s a pretty clear indication the financial markets are betting on an outright win for Boris. It’s looking like his GE gamble is going to pay off and very shortly we’ll be out of Europe.

Not sure how I feel about that right now!
User avatar
Rockape
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

Re: British Politics

Postby Phil71 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:50 am

Rockape wrote:
No more ifs and buts, this ends here.


Quite right, let’s move on. I see the pound hit it’s highest level against the euro last night. That’s a pretty clear indication the financial markets are betting on an outright win for Boris. It’s looking like his GE gamble is going to pay off and very shortly we’ll be out of Europe.

Not sure how I feel about that right now!


I tend to agree with Tony Blair (that's a rare thing) when he says this issue is too important to be decided by a GE. It should be handled separately.

The GE should be used to address other issues. Instead it's virtually another Brexit referendum.
User avatar
Phil71
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: British Politics

Postby Rockape » Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:29 am

Phil71 wrote:
Rockape wrote:
No more ifs and buts, this ends here.


Quite right, let’s move on. I see the pound hit it’s highest level against the euro last night. That’s a pretty clear indication the financial markets are betting on an outright win for Boris. It’s looking like his GE gamble is going to pay off and very shortly we’ll be out of Europe.

Not sure how I feel about that right now!


I tend to agree with Tony Blair (that's a rare thing) when he says this issue is too important to be decided by a GE. It should be handled separately.

The GE should be used to address other issues. Instead it's virtually another Brexit referendum.


Yeah but I think we tried that and look what happened! It’s a totally crap situation and whilst I’m not happy about the lack of reasonable alternatives, at least it will get it done and we can all move onto the next shitshow!
User avatar
Rockape
Thierry Henry
Thierry Henry
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:29 am
Location: Puerto Pollensa in my mind

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests