Jump to content

Loz

Member
  • Posts

    8,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loz

  1. uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you know the scottish tories won't go for a hard brexit BB Not a chance. Ruth Davidson has already declared her hand on that one.
  2. Insurance Premium Tax just went from 10% to 12%. They are fibbing! Sadly, few if any insurance companies reward loyalty. Shopping around is the best way. If you don't fancy talking to a broker then the comparison websites are probably the best route.
  3. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to know what really drives and sustains the endless press attacks on Dianne > Abbott, look at the endless abuse she gets on social media. The true nature of it is not as > guarded as in the Mail. Did you just do that confirmation bias thing again? I just did what you probably didn't do and typed both #dianneabbott and #borisjohnson into twitter search. Granted, I only went back a couple of weeks, but I saw some pretty unpleasant personal attacks on both of them. Sadly, being Twitter, I wasn't that surprised. Interestingly, there were a number of tweets supporting Abbott and very few, if any, supporting Johnson. But given the prevailing mood of sympathy for Abbott over the past couple of weeks, perhaps that is to be expected.
  4. rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about > > ?35m/year including all staff and property management. > > Where on earth did you get that figure from? Her > Majesty alone received ?45M from the government > last year (I know the figures are from that rabid > republican leftwing rag the Telegraph, but still) I have to admit, I was in a bit of a hurry and did a quick lookup on "how much does the royal family cost" and didn't really do any thorough discovery work. Looking it up again, that seems to be the Sovereign Grant figure for 2014. Looks like you have the latest figure. Seems that number is tied to the profits of the Crown Estate. Whatever it is, I think we can guess that any president would run up similar associated costs.
  5. edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What Sue and rahrahrah said. It's an interesting > encapsulation of racism and misogyny. I'm no > great defender of Abbot but the lack of self > awareness displayed by many here is staggering. Comparing two people's experiences and extrapolating that to wider issues is problematic at best. Let's take another two: Corbyn and May. Leading up to the election, Corbyn got a massive amount of bad press that picked up on his every slip and trip. May got a relatively easy run. Has anyone said that there must be a huge dollop of sexism at play here? No. Always beware of confirmation bias.
  6. I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about ?35m/year including all staff and property management. Assuming we do what everyone else does and replace it with a presidential system, the savings will almost certainly be zero at best. And we would be left with yet another some party political muppet prancing around. And if you think the royal palaces would ever be used to house the homeless, you've been smoking something. The loss in tourism would be hard to quantify, but would be significant. The loss in terms of international cachet would be irreplaceable. Dinner with the Queen is up there with dinner with POTUS for international leaders (actually, given the current POTUS, she's up there on her own at the moment). So, ask yourself the question: would a replacement actually be any better? Given the dearth of political leadership in this country, would it be a lot, lot worse? Boris? Corbyn? May? The mind boggles. But feel free to have a referendum on the subject - the most recent polls say that a whole 9% of the country is on your side.
  7. Personally, I think this is a game between May and Corbyn that has got out of hand. It probably went like this: Corbyn: Hey Theresa - do you want to play a game of "Worst Possible Minister Ever"? May: OK. You go first. Corbyn: OK. John McDonnell - Chancellor of the Exchequer May: Putting a Marxist in charge of the treasury? That's nasty. My go. Michael Gove - Education Secretary. Corbyn: Really? A guy that looks like he was beaten up at school on a daily basis? Ouch. OK, I'm going to go all out, play my trump card and stick an old shag of mine in as Home Secretary. May: What??? Hugo Chavez? Corbyn: Noooo. Diane Abbott. Nothing like a complete hypocrite as Home Sec. Her occasional racism is a bit of a bonus. May: OK, I'll see your Diane Abbott and raise you Boris as Foreign Secretary. That's Mornington Crescent, I believe. Corbyn. You always go too far, don't you Theresa?
  8. Loz

    8 June

    I think we've strayed from my original point. I agree that the DUP are a bunch of political Neanderthals. And May is taking a massive (and almost certainly unnecessary) risk in dealing with them. But taking that simple issue and then trying to say that, because of that, she is now 'mates' with an ex-Loyalist paramilitary with a lot of blood on his hands and some extremely dodgy NI police offices from 1994 is just unbelievably ridiculous.
  9. Loz

    8 June

    If someone posted a link to Corbyn meeting Sinn Fein and then two more listing a couple of IRA atrocities you would be first to squeal like a stuck pig, L516. Or maybe not, since you regard Martin McGuinness as "a patriot & a great man".
  10. Loz

    8 June

    rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand, what is "tenuous" about the fact that the DUP, with whom May is consorting to > remain in power, offer tacit support to a terrorist group? Nothing at all. But LL's post suggested, and you backed up, that because she was consorting with the DUP, she now is considered 'mates' with an ex-Loyalist paramilitary with a lot of blood on his hands and some extremely dodgy NI police offices from 1994. Which is why I didn't mention LL's first link - that one seemed a pretty fair call. But the other two? Yes, very, very tenuous.
  11. Loz

    8 June

    rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given that the DUP apparently support the flying > of UVF flags, quite a lot I'd say: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nort > hern-ireland-dup-mp-uvf-terror-flags-outcry-uproar > -emma-little-pengelly-south-belfast-a7800846.html Extremely tenuous, to say the least. If you believe that, and you were in any way consistent, you'd have say Corbyn is 'mates' with some pretty unpleasant terrorist individuals as well. And I'm pretty sure you'd never say that.
  12. Loz

    8 June

    Lordship 516 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These are Thearse May's new mates ..... > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nort > hern-ireland-dup-mp-uvf-terror-flags-outcry-uproar > -emma-little-pengelly-south-belfast-a7800846.html > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gary-ha > ggarty-murder-terror-offences-ulster-volunteer-for > ce-belfast-a7804371.html > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lou > ghinisland-shooting-police-officers-colluded-with- > loyalist-gunmen-who-gunned-down-six-catholics-a707 > 2261.html what do the second and third links have to do with the PM?
  13. Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're not saying they've got built in > obsolescence are you ? > > Imagine if that is the case .....OMG and some !! I doubt this is the case. Printers are sold as a loss-leader - companies make their money selling ink. A broken printer gives people to opportunity to change brands, which would be counter-productive. I think Hanlon's razor is applicable here: ?Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
  14. Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No similar thread for Boris, then? You are allowed to start threads, Sue.
  15. BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And talking of low tax agendas, don't forget > Guardian Media Group's shady dealings with regard > to avoiding tax: > https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-05-16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions Not to mention when it pushed the sale of Auto Trader through a Cayman Islands shell company to avoid tax. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/
  16. JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Hmmm, interesting. > > So it was nothing to do with a rebellious Remain > vote (see Kensington), or a disastrous manifesto, > or Lynton Crosby repeating his old mistakes. Reports suggest that Crosby was pretty much sidelined during the election campaign, right from his email suggesting to May that calling an election was a really bad idea. Which makes sense as the Tory's campaign had a real whiff of amateurism about it. Like him or hate him, Crosby knows how to run ruthlessly efficient election campaigns.
  17. uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She didn't get a majority because of the fox-hunting in the manifesto....social media is as > big on 'let's all hug a bunny, fox, give up meat, legalise dope ..'etc, as it is on 'I don't want to > pay my uni fees' If social media were any reliable guide, Corbyn would have 600 MPs and the Greens 50.
  18. Someone on Twitter has give the Queen an award for "Best Trolling Using a Hat". :))
  19. She didn't actually win the election. Had she won a clear majority and dropped these, you'd have a point. Actually, there were a couple of pleasant surprises in the QS I didn't know were coming - the tenant fees banning and the right to be forgotten. Shame about all the Project Economic Suicide stuff. (and a tip of the hat to Jenny1 for that phrase!)
  20. Considering a new version of that model is about ?70, I can't believe it would be economically viable.
  21. Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers, > cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some > of us are in all three of those groups) - need to > remember to read the whole road. Maybe everyone > should take the driving theory test at 17 > regardless of whether they want to learn to drive. I would go a little further and put everyone in the cab of a reasonably large van. I've driven some pretty large vehicles in my time and I have a good idea where all the blind spots are. I now cycle about a mile or so in zone 1 and I cringe at some of the places cyclists place themselves, not understanding the driver has a very tiny chance of knowing they are there. Preferably they would get to drive the van around a corner as well (it's very different from a car), but I realise that may be more than a little impractical.
  22. Sue, A friend of mine has been volunteering and she posted a link to this group as a reliable place to send your money. I only have her word for it, but she's pretty reliable. https://thekandcfoundation.com/donate/
  23. There's a huge demand for butter. It's going to be used to ease the passage of Brexit, "Last Tango in Paris" style.
  24. Loz

    Brexit View

    uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree with keano77- the article is biased and > from German so was probably instigated by Merkel > as they are scared stiff that France and Germany > are going to have to make up the shortfall. From Swiss German, UG. I realise your knowledge of Europe is limited, but they are actually really quite different countries. Especially as one of them isn't in the EU.
  25. Loz

    Brexit View

    With Brexit negotiations about to start, I just spotted this on Facebook. It's a translation of an article in a Swiss newspaper, Der Bund. The bit about the recent election is especially notable: "The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign." ---- THE LAUGHING STOCK OF EUROPE [Translation by Paula Kirby] If it weren't so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country?s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country? Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights. The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point. In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers? obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron?s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit. The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Brexit campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem. Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that?s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun. With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery. Great Britain will end up leaving its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and brings the fewest possible economic disadvantages. It?s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn?t toe the line. The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party ? among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues ? are already threatening rebellion. An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain?s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they?d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt. British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties. Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long had a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand. After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...