• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 18645
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
harpo_72 said:
Never condoned or prevented - back door funding. It’s strange that America has some way funded a shed load of organisations at some point from 1940 onwards ..
regards Hamas etc .. we would not have them if Israel were to tone down their activities, but guess who funds Israel?? Not JC ...
Click to expand...

I've been in pubs in the UK that have sent the bucket round.

As for Hamas, they'll always be there irrespective of what Israel does. Hamas is the ruling Palestinian political party as well as having a military wing, just as the PLO is structured. And they will always be there whilst Israel is in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And its not that long ago that Egypt also imposed sanctions on Hamas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

And the reason the Americans are so involved; because it has no friends amongst the Arab states bordering the Med. What started out as a sympathy for a Jewish state after WW2 has evolved into a strategic need because of Russia's influence in the area.
 
Can anyone confirm if this table is factually correct

5334817A-A466-4106-9E4C-56D35FD13D93.jpeg
Paints an interesting picture
 
Hobbit said:
I've been in pubs in the UK that have sent the bucket round.

As for Hamas, they'll always be there irrespective of what Israel does. Hamas is the ruling Palestinian political party as well as having a military wing, just as the PLO is structured. And they will always be there whilst Israel is in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And its not that long ago that Egypt also imposed sanctions on Hamas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

And the reason the Americans are so involved; because it has no friends amongst the Arab states bordering the Med. What started out as a sympathy for a Jewish state after WW2 has evolved into a strategic need because of Russia's influence in the area.
Click to expand...
So is it a bad thing to talk with these people ... no. By not talking we take sides.
 
harpo_72 said:
So is it a bad thing to talk with these people ... no. By not talking we take sides.
Click to expand...

I don't remember saying we shouldn't talk to them... where did you get that from? If you don't talk, you can't resolve differences.

However, seeing as you raised the point. The talking should be done by the Foreign Office or intermediary talking on its behalf. It shouldn't be a back bencher, especially an opposition (radical) back bencher who has no clout whatsoever and only provides airtime and an element of 'legitimacy' to an officially recognised terrorist organisation.
 
harpo_72 said:
Never condoned or prevented - back door funding. It’s strange that America has some way funded a shed load of organisations at some point from 1940 onwards ..
regards Hamas etc .. we would not have them if Israel were to tone down their activities, but guess who funds Israel?? Not JC ...
Click to expand...
Don’t forget all the British Soldiers killed by Isreali terrorists, some of those terrorists became the leaders of Isreal. :unsure:
 
Hobbit said:
I don't remember saying we shouldn't talk to them... where did you get that from? If you don't talk, you can't resolve differences.

However, seeing as you raised the point. The talking should be done by the Foreign Office or intermediary talking on its behalf. It shouldn't be a back bencher, especially an opposition (radical) back bencher who has no clout whatsoever and only provides airtime and an element of 'legitimacy' to an officially recognised terrorist organisation.
Click to expand...
I think you have stated it a back bench nobody.. all these people probably saw him as a stepping stone. But in the end he was a nobody.
The other point is the original post was trying to portray these actions as untrustworthy.. perhaps we should call it an active attempt at project fear.
None of these discussions have been to the detriment of the UK, unlike the constant lies we get from our current unelected PM who also is a serial cheater and sexist plonk. (Amber Rudd’s comments and his deal vs May, his comments about May vs his own success)
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Can anyone confirm if this table is factually correct

View attachment 28478
Paints an interesting picture
Click to expand...

Finding the truth or otherwise in all of that isn't easy.

There is one area that I know Johnson has spoken about, e.g. climate change. During a speech at the UN in Aug/Sept? I'm fairly certain he announced over a billion pounds of funding to tackle climate change. The runs counter to what is in the table, but equally he wants to drop some of the EU's environmental laws, allegedly.

Another one, close to my heart after working in the industry for over 25 years is the NHS. An area that rankles with me is procurement. Tony Blair privatised it, rebranding it NHS Procurement. Its majority owned by DHL. It chases cheaper pricing - good - but charges the NHS 14% of every deal to do so. It also charges the suppliers a big chunk to be on the approved supplier list. Without going into boring detail, it stinks, and it doesn't benefit the NHS Trusts. Johnson and Hancock were working on a Bill to end DHL's exclusivity. It also looked to remove the Section 75 on tendering. The NHS never wanted it, and have argued for its ending for many years. Johnson wanted to end it as part of the Bill. And that runs counter to whats in the table.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Corbyn would be against extra funding for 16-17 year old during training.

For Jo Swinson it appears, somewhat surprisingly, accurate in terms of her voting record on disability benefits... wow, I'm gobsmacked. I wouldn't touch her with a barge pole. She's a bit nasty.

TBH, I don't know how much fact and how much fiction is in there.
 
harpo_72 said:
I think you have stated it a back bench nobody.. all these people probably saw him as a stepping stone. But in the end he was a nobody.
The other point is the original post was trying to portray these actions as untrustworthy.. perhaps we should call it an active attempt at project fear.
None of these discussions have been to the detriment of the UK, unlike the constant lies we get from our current unelected PM who also is a serial cheater and sexist plonk. (Amber Rudd’s comments and his deal vs May, his comments about May vs his own success)
Click to expand...

Do you know none of these discussions were to the detriment of the UK? Do you know what discussions the foreign Office were having during those times? Thought not.

I don't like Johnson one little bit. But I see Corbyn as untrustworthy as Johnson. Further, do a little digging on the number of antisemitic instances in the Labour Party in the last 5 years. And have a look at the number of times the Leader's office has interfered with the investigations. Call it a version of project fear if you want but as a predominantly Labour voter there's no way I'll vote Labour whilst he, McDonnell and Momentum are anywhere near the Labour Party.
 
Hobbit said:
Do you know none of these discussions were to the detriment of the UK? Do you know what discussions the foreign Office were having during those times? Thought not.

I don't like Johnson one little bit. But I see Corbyn as untrustworthy as Johnson. Further, do a little digging on the number of antisemitic instances in the Labour Party in the last 5 years. And have a look at the number of times the Leader's office has interfered with the investigations. Call it a version of project fear if you want but as a predominantly Labour voter there's no way I'll vote Labour whilst he, McDonnell and Momentum are anywhere near the Labour Party.
Click to expand...
Let me answer the first question.. of cause it will be provide me with evidence that it was to the detriment of the UK 🙂👍.
Now your talking about anti Semitic behaviour, yes I agree and that is one completely unacceptable issue. He has not addressed it nor removed it from his party.
I won’t vote for him either but I will not tolerate Tory rubbish either.
 
harpo_72 said:
So is it a bad thing to talk with these people ... no. By not talking we take sides.
Click to expand...

It's not a bad thing to talk to "these people". But when you are ONLY talking to "these people" then you are taking sides. Unless you are talking with both sides then you aren't trying to find a solution.
 
And a rather important one missing from the Table that all Leave voters who accept the risk of Scotland leaving the Union as a the price worth paying need to consider.

If this all came to pass where do they want Trident to be based. Because the SNP will require Trident to be removed from the Clyde. Even if it is negotiable - then you can be sure that the bill for it remaining would be hefty and would help fill any gap in Scotland’s finances.

I haven’t heard this discussed of late. So unlike the NI/EU border sneaking under the radar to become a massive problem...what if? Where will Westminster put Trident?
 
ColchesterFC said:
It's not a bad thing to talk to "these people". But when you are ONLY talking to "these people" then you are taking sides. Unless you are talking with both sides then you aren't trying to find a solution.
Click to expand...
Who knows only a small story was presented to impact opinion.
Thankfully Boris’ bad behaviour is clear and evident without any required “spin”
 
spongebob59 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1190952807756632069
Click to expand...
Don’t think she got her at all. The question was laid out and the point was to show the swing in opinion from Labour to Lib Dem because they have committed to remain.
Voting for labour for a remainer is not a final option because there still may be a leave option on the table.
Don’t get me wrong, labour policy is reasonable but given the time scales to conduct the referendum and then act we are looking at around another year possibly.
The Lib Dem policy leaves no leeway and it’s straight forward we stay and get on with sorting all the stuff out that has been neglected. Likewise Tory policy we sign up for the Boris deal and get on with it.
Forget the Brexit party without Farage it’s a pointless proposition and another possible vehicle for the EDL. They will not get enough seats to participate, now that Farage has left them high and dry.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
And a rather important one missing from the Table that all Leave voters who accept the risk of Scotland leaving the Union as a the price worth paying need to consider.

If this all came to pass where do they want Trident to be based. Because the SNP will require Trident to be removed from the Clyde. Even if it is negotiable - then you can be sure that the bill for it remaining would be hefty and would help fill any gap in Scotland’s finances.

I haven’t heard this discussed of late. So unlike the NI/EU border sneaking under the radar to become a massive problem...what if? Where will Westminster put Trident?
Click to expand...
I remember this being discussed last time around and I don't believe there was a definitive answer.

People quote the docks around Plymouth but that is too close to a population centre so that is ruled out.

The best suggestion, imo, was that it does not really matter where they are based as the key is the time they are out at sea. This means they could well be at a US submarine base, Sweden probably has the capability as well. Effectively rent space off them. Whether that is politically acceptable for UK politicians or actually practical I don't know.

The SNP want Scotland to be a nuclear free zone so it would be interesting to hear if they could be bought off over this.

Another option would be to make the nuclear docks an enclave for the remainder of the UK, a bit of the UK left in Scotland. Politically controversial but a possible way out of this.

Undoubtedly a problem due to the very special requirements of these submarines

Incidentally, if Scotland decides to leave the union it is because the Scottish people want it to happen, not because Brexiteers want to trade Scotland off. Last time I checked the Conservatives and Lib Dems have specifically said no to a further referendum, only Labour are open to another vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top