the snap general election thread

ThinkingOutLoud_2

paparossco wrote: »

'English' and 'British' is used interchangeably by some aspects of the media. A piece in the 'i' a while back said that Agincourt was a British victory (rather than English and Welsh) yet Waterloo was an English one.

Agreed. The misuse of such terms is often unintentional - but with any "quality newspaper", you might hope for better from the editor.

Spidernick

Fella wrote: »

Quelle Surprize, Labour's "Fully Costed" manifesto turns out to be not costed at all, and in fact a pack of lies designed to bribe the foolish:

https://order-order.com/2017/07/16/mcdonnell-backtracks-on-labour-vow-to-write-off-student-debt/

I suppose what we need to ask ourselves is whether it's better to try and show how you will pay for things (as Labour did), or not even attempt to show how you will fund your promises (which is what the Tories did). It all depends on where your support lies, I would imagine.

So, is this your new line of attack, seeing that your previous assertions that Labour was an irrelevance have been disproved many times over?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Spidernick wrote: »

I suppose what we need to ask ourselves is whether it's better to try and show how you will pay for things (as Labour did), or not even attempt to show how you will fund your promises (which is what the Tories did). It all depends on where your support lies, I would imagine.

So, is this your new line of attack, seeing that your previous assertions that Labour was an irrelevance have been disproved many times over?

I kind of agree better to try to show where the money is coming from than not.

But, per this revelation, Labour actually haven't done that; they claimed everything is fully funded and now says it is not or imply they had got their sums wrong - there is not a lot of merit in that either.

One is at least a list of intentions however hopeful - the other sheer misrepresentation surely?

gfplux

This is Bloomberg's take on this weeks meeting in Brussels. They do mention Quotas but only quoting the Politico story.


"Heading into round two, Simon Kennedy and Ian Wishart have taken a look at the key issues.

European Court of Justice: May said last year that one of her “red lines” was ending the court’s role in British law. She reemphasized that in a July 13 interview with The Sun. Should the court protect the rights of nationals post-Brexit? Davis has said it won’t, although he’s willing to consider the establishment of a new arbitration body. EU officials told Bloomberg News in June that they may be willing to concede on their demand that the ECJ serve as arbiter.

May’s spokesman said last week that “the transition rules could involve the ECJ for a limited time.” That would save Britain from needing a new regulatory regime for industries from drugs to aviation on the day of Brexit.

Nuclear: May said in March that Britain would leave the European Atomic Energy Community. But that decision drew opposition from the nuclear industry and from May’s own Conservative Party. The criticism was fanned by reports that the transportation of radioactive materials used to diagnose and treat cancer would be jeopardized. Davis suggested last week that the U.K. might seek an “associate” membership of Euratom. That could test his red line over ending freedom of movement.

Ireland: An agreement on the broad principles will be sought so that it doesn’t hold up the wider Brexit talks, four people familiar with the matter told Bloomberg last week. Germany questions the need for a totally open border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The bill: Last week British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the EU could “go whistle” because “the sums that I have seen that they propose to demand from this country seem to me to be extortionate.” However, the U.K. seemed to step back on Thursday when a written statement to Parliament referred explicitly to a “financial settlement,” with the government recognizing “the U.K. has obligations to the EU.” Now they just have to calculate how much."

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Yes, as noted in even Wiki - it is a bit like calling a Scot English - they are used to it - but most are not in favour of the inaccuracy.

Your pedantry beside being wearisome is also unnecessarily misleading since the inaccuracy here is yours.
The use of Holland is nothing like your example at all and what's more demonstrates poor knowledge of the Dutch people - and I have Dutch friends BTW.

First your "as noted in Wiki" is rather selective; what is very clearly said in there, just to remind you is:

not entirely uncommon among the Dutch themselves, though some in the Netherlands and particularly in other regions of the country may find it undesirable[2] or misrepresentative.

Note "some".

Certainly not "most" as you suggest.

Second see the below:
http://www.holland.com/global/tourism/discover-holland/traditional.htm
Can you read the very first sentence which follows the header of that page?
"The Netherlands (or Holland) may be a small country" - from a Dutch website itself promoting tourism.

How about:


Now is there any possibility of ceasing distasteful and in this case misplaced pedantry to instead contribute something of value to this thread?

Fella

Spidernick wrote: »

I suppose what we need to ask ourselves is whether it's better to try and show how you will pay for things (as Labour did), or not even attempt to show how you will fund your promises (which is what the Tories did). It all depends on where your support lies, I would imagine.

So, is this your new line of attack, seeing that your previous assertions that Labour was an irrelevance have been disproved many times over?

The Tories didn't provide costing. Labour lied. Lying is a lot worse. Luckily Labour got a good kicking anyway.

Your second paragraph appears to be gibberish & I don't actually know what you're going on about.

cogito

Fella wrote: »

The Tories didn't provide costing. Labour lied. Lying is a lot worse. Luckily Labour got a good kicking anyway.

Your second paragraph appears to be gibberish & I don't actually know what you're going on about.

And this weekend, McDonnell has said that abolishing tuition fees is only an ambition. So it wasn't costed after all. Quelle surprise.

So presumably, this won't appear in their next manifesto and all the students who voted for Corbyn can now go back to the bar.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cogito wrote: »

And this weekend, McDonnell has said that abolishing tuition fees is only an ambition. So it wasn't costed after all. Quelle surprise.

Wrong.

He re-affirmed they would abolish tuition fees - and that part is costed.

The 'aspiration' quote referred to forgiving existing student debt.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong.

He re-affirmed they would abolish tuition fees - and that part is costed.

The 'aspiration' quote referred to forgiving existing student debt.

So to clarify, they were only going to honour their promise to what, 18-21 year olds? The promise they made to all the 21-40-something year olds was just a lie.

No wonder it's going viral:
https://order-order.com/2017/07/17/labours-broken-student-debt-promise-goes-viral/

Whenever the next election is the Labour manifesto should hopefully receive about a thousand times the scrutiny it got this time. Stuff like this will come back to bite them. Those student types don't take kindly to politicians who offer them a bung then backtrack on it, as the Libs found out to their cost.

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wrong.

He re-affirmed they would abolish tuition fees - and that part is costed.

The 'aspiration' quote referred to forgiving existing student debt.

Not wrong. It was repeated ad nauseam during the election campaign that student debt was to be forgiven and doubtless many people voted for labour on the strength of that promise. A bit like many people voted for the libdumbs in 2010 on the basis that tuition fees would be abolished.