Ge 2017

[Old Skier]

Yes, like you Neil seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Education in Scotland is devolved, as is the NHS.
Nothing to do with a Westminster election, everything to do with a Holyrood election.
Did not stop the numptie asking 26 of his 34 questions and about 70% of the 30 mins on devolved issues.

It was also the interview when he insisted no English nurses had been made redundant when in fact over 3000 had lost their jobs.

'Tore her to pieces', goodness me what were you watching. :lol:

He's had to discuss devolved issues, he was interviewing someone who has no standing in Westminster and looks over a minor devolved parliament. He was unable to ask about main UK issues as she's not involved at that high a level.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Analysis carried out by the Professor of Economics, Kings College London (discussed with him this morning on LBC) - indicates that when nett immigration is under 100,000 per annum the cost to the exchequer will be £6bn/year in respect of the tax take (never mind the impact on GDP and economic growth) - so £120m/week.

Now that's a fair chunk of the £350m/week (£250m/week after the rebate and £175m/week after £4bn spending equivalent to current EU funding of UK projects etc is taken off) - pity so many believed the £350m/week figure before the vote.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-million-a-week-to-the-eu-claim-a7085016.html

Of course no doubt there will be another economist that will show that nett immigration of less than 100,000 will be beneficial to the economy.

 

[Old Skier]

Of course no doubt there will be another economist that will show that nett immigration of less than 100,000 will be beneficial to the economy.

If and I suspect its a big IF it gets more local people back into work and of the unemployment register it would benefit the economy.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If and I suspect its a big IF it gets more local people back into work and of the unemployment register it would benefit the economy.

It would - but the benefit would be tempered by the fact that all the unemployed are already part of the economy in their spending. With reduced immigration we are talking about taking a lot of people out of the economy - so we lose the stimulus and contribution to GDP, as well as the employment for others, that their businesses bring, and the impact on other businesses of their spending.

 

[Old Skier]

It would - but the benefit would be tempered by the fact that all the unemployed are already part of the economy in their spending. With reduced immigration we are talking about taking a lot of people out of the economy - so we lose the stimulus and contribution to GDP, as well as the employment for others, that their businesses bring, and the impact on other businesses of their spending.

Your argument makes no mention of the cost benifits within the health and education sector and other public sector organisations however it's irrelevant as in the negotiations (look it up) there is more than likely an agreement which the British Government has already hinted at but ignored by some that EU citizens will get the right to remain in the UK. Not sure if an independent Scotland would make the same consesion when they leave the EU

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Your argument makes no mention of the cost benifits within the health and education sector and other public sector organisations however it's irrelevant as in the negotiations (look it up) there is more than likely an agreement which the British Government has already hinted at but ignored by some that EU citizens will get the right to remain in the UK. Not sure if an independent Scotland would make the same consesion when they leave the EU

You mean the hit they will have to take through loss of people? Did you not notice that numbers coming here from the EU are already dropping and those leaving is increasing. And so who will replace them?

It is nonsense and madness to set an arbitrary figure of 100,000 as a target for nett immigration. It is nonsense because it does not take into any account the level of nett immigration that is required (analysis I have seen suggests a minimum of 200,000) and so is not a level that fits with our needs and so will be self-harming; and it is madness because it is repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

But it is a nonsense and madness that many buy into as it meets their 'too many immigrants' narrative - a narrative that is maintained despite all the evidence and arguments that show that we need immigration.

And for the Right Wing Press to rant today about a secret Labour Plan to increase immigration is just shocking. It is neither secret nor a plan. It is I understand it simply a discussion paper looking at the immigration needs of the economy and how that could require increased immigration. But of course Paul Dacre doesn't want his readers to understand that. He wants to frighten them. Desperate.

 

[SocketRocket]

You mean the hit they will have to take through loss of people? Did you not notice that numbers coming here from the EU are already dropping and those leaving is increasing. And so who will replace them?

It is nonsense and madness to set an arbitrary figure of 100,000 as a target for nett immigration. It is nonsense because it does not take into any account the level of nett immigration that is required (analysis I have seen suggests a minimum of 200,000) and so is not a level that fits with our needs and so will be self-harming; and it is madness because it is repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

But it is a nonsense and madness that many buy into as it meets their 'too many immigrants' narrative - a narrative that is maintained despite all the evidence and arguments that show that we need immigration.

And for the Right Wing Press to rant today about a secret Labour Plan to increase immigration is just shocking. It is neither secret nor a plan. It is I understand it simply a discussion paper looking at the immigration needs of the economy and how that could require increased immigration. But of course Paul Dacre doesn't want his readers to understand that. He wants to frighten them. Desperate.

I have given you an alternative view on this before, one that suggests immigration is at the best cost neutral but probably creating a large loss to the exchequer over time. Rather than ignore it or suggest it's just right wing propaganda read it and discuss :

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/press-article/136

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/history-of-immigration

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/economics

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And so...the audience were enthusiastically supportive of five out of seven parties in the debate.

If there are equal numbers of supporters of each party then of course there will be more left supporting than right. So why on earth would there be a balance between left and right.

And the Tories and UKIP are complaining about BBC bias and that the audience was a disgrace. But the BBC didn't select the audience!!!

Oh yes - and Farage complaining that there wasn't a specific question on Brexit - whilst there was one on climate change. BBC bias!!! There was a question on immigration for Nuttall to get his teeth into; and it's only fair to have one for Caroline Lucas.

Oh well.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Amber Rudd: Trust us on our record.
Audience: Bursts out into spontaneous laughter.

Quite a change for us all to actually see and hear a neutral BBC politics audience eh.
I though Wee Angus did well [but I would wouldn't I]

 

[spongebob59]

Wonder if Osbourne wrote this ?

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...n-remotely-capable-of-governing-a3554456.html

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Amber Rudd: Trust us on our record.
Audience: Bursts out into spontaneous laughter.

Quite a change for us all to actually see and hear a neutral BBC politics audience eh.
I though Wee Angus did well [but I would wouldn't I]

You know that the audience was selected by an independent polling organisation. They would not deliberately bias it in favour of Labour as they would know the ruckus that would result. It looked a very small audience. Having equal numbers of supporters of each party would inevitably great an overwhelming left-bias in the audience.

But that is how British party politics are with many more left-leaning parties than right. You then have the 'secret and older Tory' effect, balanced against a younger left-leaning part of the audience more ready and willing to make a noise.

 

[SocketRocket]

You know that the audience was selected by an independent polling organisation. They would not deliberately bias it in favour of Labour as they would know the ruckus that would result. It looked a very small audience. Having equal numbers of supporters of each party would inevitably great an overwhelming left-bias in the audience.

But that is how British party politics are with many more left-leaning parties than right. You then have the 'secret and older Tory' effect, balanced against a younger left-leaning part of the audience more ready and willing to make a noise.

If the balance of the audience was equal between all the representative speakers then it would be very biased against the Tories. By the audience reaction it seemed that was exactly what it was.

 

[jp5]

Probably just surprising as it was a genuinely balanced audience as opposed to the Question Time idea of a 'balanced' audience!

No doubt it seemed one-sided as there seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm for Mr Corbyn, and not much for Ms Rudd. Possibly what happens if the PM thinks it is below her to turn up!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Tory HQ 'Hi, look the vote is looking a bit closer than we expected. I mean how were we to know that the other parties actually have some sensible popular policies that will benefit a lot of people in society, not just a few. However, as we all know our glorious leader is too busy to debate our policies with anyone and try and defend our pretty unpleasant manifesto, so could you do us a favour and just print some garbage headlines about Corbyn, you know, he will eat all your children or something like that, usual stuff, no mention whatsoever of what we will do, just some pointless puerile scaremongering. Anything to prevent middle England from actually thinking about the good of all society and what we will do to the country if we get in again.

Tory In House magazines 'I don't know, even we are a bit bored of this now, how about you say what you will do for Britain, you know, tell people what your plans are for schools, the NHS, public services, that kind of thing'

Tory HQ 'Don't be stupid, your job is deflect as much as you can away from the fact our policies are actually quite nasty. Just keep middle England scared of Corbyn, do as we say or your editors will not get the honours we promised them.

Tory In House Magazines ' Will do boss....'

 

[spongebob59]

After watching the Andrew Neil interview last night.....

Taxi for Farron !

 

[IanM]

Tory HQ 'Hi, look the vote is looking a bit closer than we expected. I mean how were we to know that the other parties actually have some sensible popular policies that will benefit a lot of people in society, not just a few. However, as we all know our glorious leader is too busy to debate our policies with anyone and try and defend our pretty unpleasant manifesto, so could you do us a favour and just print some garbage headlines about Corbyn, you know, he will eat all your children or something like that, usual stuff, no mention whatsoever of what we will do, just some pointless puerile scaremongering. Anything to prevent middle England from actually thinking about the good of all society and what we will do to the country if we get in again.

Tory In House magazines 'I don't know, even we are a bit bored of this now, how about you say what you will do for Britain, you know, tell people what your plans are for schools, the NHS, public services, that kind of thing'

Tory HQ 'Don't be stupid, your job is deflect as much as you can away from the fact our policies are actually quite nasty. Just keep middle England scared of Corbyn, do as we say or your editors will not get the honours we promised them.

Tory In House Magazines ' Will do boss....'

View attachment 22812 View attachment 22813

Correct...and this differs from those which support EU/Labour in what way exactly?

I think they could try harder... Corbyn to give Gib to Spain and the Falklands to Argentina perhaps? I guess the Protestants in Ulster are panicking too! His chums will expect action.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Correct...and this differs from those which support EU/Labour in what way exactly?

I think they could try harder... Corbyn to give Gib to Spain and the Falklands to Argentina perhaps? I guess the Protestants in Ulster are panicking too! His chums will expect action.

Well today The Guardian is leading on the Trump Climate non deal and The Mirror on the Ariana Grande concert.

I know the political bias of each paper and you expect 'selective' headlines depending on which one you read. But for all the right wing papers to essentially go with the same narrative of 'Labour is bad/Corbyn is evil' on the same day at a time where polls are suggesting it will not be the landslide the tories first may have expected seems a bit of a coincidence. At the very least then could have come up with exaggerated story of how a Tory policy will make their readers lives a bit better after June 8th.

It's as if the Tories are a bit ashamed of their policies and don't want them discussed in the public arena .....

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Well today The Guardian is leading on the Trump Climate non deal and The Mirror on the Ariana Grande concert.

I know the political bias of each paper and you expect 'selective' headlines depending on which one you read. But for all the right wing papers to essentially go with the same narrative of 'Labour is bad/Corbyn is evil' on the same day at a time where polls are suggesting it will not be the landslide the tories first may have expected seems a bit of a coincidence. At the very least then could have come up with exaggerated story of how a Tory policy will make their readers lives a bit better after June 8th.

It's as if the Tories are a bit ashamed of their policies and don't want them discussed in the public arena .....

Ruth Davidson was looking extremely uncomfortable attempting to defend the two child/rape clause on Scottish TV last night.

No mention of the words 'Conservative' and/or 'May' in many of 'The Ruth Davidson Party' leaflets.
Sadly the name 'Ruth Davidson' is becoming just as toxic as her popularity ratings plunge.

 

[SocketRocket]

Ruth Davidson was looking extremely uncomfortable attempting to defend the two child/rape clause on Scottish TV last night.

No mention of the words 'Conservative' and/or 'May' in many of 'The Ruth Davidson Party' leaflets.
Sadly the name 'Ruth Davidson' is becoming just as toxic as her popularity ratings plunge.

Fishing again.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well today The Guardian is leading on the Trump Climate non deal and The Mirror on the Ariana Grande concert.

I know the political bias of each paper and you expect 'selective' headlines depending on which one you read. But for all the right wing papers to essentially go with the same narrative of 'Labour is bad/Corbyn is evil' on the same day at a time where polls are suggesting it will not be the landslide the tories first may have expected seems a bit of a coincidence. At the very least then could have come up with exaggerated story of how a Tory policy will make their readers lives a bit better after June 8th.

It's as if the Tories are a bit ashamed of their policies and don't want them discussed in the public arena .....

What's the latest opinion from Gardener's weekly and Motorcycle Monthly? You really appear to have an unhealthy fixation with News Papers.