UsedtobeWozzer

7 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Fair enough but I saw an interview on BBC news site from Nov 2016 where he says he is against it... 

 

Also.. he has voted against all legislation but wozzer ignored that part. 

Again in the interests of balance he voted the same way as TMay on the 2005 prevention of terrorism act and on the introduction of ID cards. There's an interesting article on their respective voting records on terror legisalation on the BBC website. Whether you agree with him or not he usually bothered to turn up to vote unlike May who couldn't be arsed on numerous occasions.

13 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

Ok wozzer, let's not be too myopic shall we.  

 

Not one of the 7 Home Secretaries (5 labour, 2 Tory) since 9/11 have done anything effective to tackle this issue.  Not one. This is not party political, it's the whole political classes frightened of their own shadows sitting on their hands. 

 

But just to balance you a bit....

 

Khan, labour mayor of London.

 

Terrorism is "part and parcel of living in a big city". 2016

 

This morning after the London attack.... Weak words and platitudes. He's an irrelevance in this debate because he won't deal with the real issue. 

 

 

Corbyn. 

 

Opposes shoot to kill policy of terrorists (shoot to kill worked very well last night imo).  Has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation in the last 30 years. 

 

 

Yes. All politicians of all persuasions have been weak on this for years and years for fear of offence (I have no idea why).  But at least now the PM has stated this needs to change and that this is Islamist terrorism. Some politicians won't even admit that yet. 

Fine. It it would help your argument if you didn't propagate lies about Corbyn's stance on shoot to kill though. A quick search for his leaders report to the NEC after the 2015 Paris attacks clearly states that he supports whatever (key word) appropriate proportionate response is necessary to save lives in circumstances similar to the Paris attacks. Clearly last nights frankly brilliant work by armed police was proportionate. Don't believe everything you're told.

So to summarise today so far, T May has declared after 7 years as Home Sec and PM that enough is enough. Brilliant.

Meanwhile noted lefty IDS has admitted on R4 that the Tory Govt's replacement of control orders with TPIMs in 2011 has "watered down" terror effort. 

You couldnt make make it up.

57 minutes ago, mcfluff1985 said:

 

 

I'd say this is the speech that wins her the election 

Well maybe if her track record of taking 20,000 police off the streets is completely ignored.

13 minutes ago, opinions4u said:

It acts as a deterrent for non-nuclear arsing about too.

Which is why I support the renewal of Trident. It doesn't diminish the point that it is only a deterrent if you never use it. As soon as you do, whatever the circumstances, it isn't a deterrent.

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

Sigh. Those people didn't want a nuclear holocaust.. obviously. It was a question of his pacifism. He is one. He may as well unilaterally disarm if you will never use it under any circumstances.  The threat of having it as a deterrent is no deterrent if you openly say you will never use it. 

 

I see the whoopers and whistlers where in again happy clapping every single word and giggling at the weakest of weak jokes. 

 

Both poor again last night obviously. Independent observers stating that Corbyn struggled slightly more and I'd agree with that.

I'm not a pacifist but there were several questions about whether he would be prepared to use it first. You refer to it as a deterrent as does everybody. If you use it first it's not a deterrent. Also worth pointing out if you use it second it's not a deterrent either.

1 hour ago, joe_lead said:

After tonights Question Time Leaders Special, Frankie Boyle on Twitter -

'All the average British punter wants is to be paid less than £10 an hour and be incinerated in a nuclear holocaust, and good luck to em'

It almost makes you feel grateful for British politicians whatever their hue. The apparent desire for nuclear holocaust in that audience tonight was pretty chilling.

8 minutes ago, leeslover said:

I did all that, and I had a 2's up with Gisele and Susie Dent. And I don't think my wife found out.

Riley not interested? 

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

A simple 'no they are not definitely correlated' would suffice.  Because that is the only sensible answer anyone with even a bit of knowledge can give. Labours entire spending plans depend on them being correlated. 

I'll take your word for it I haven't looked at the OBR forecasts or their assumptions. I suppose my comeback would be at least they've had a stab at forecasting unlike the other lot who astonishingly didn't even bother.

10 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Id like your comment as a numbers man on that please. 

Clearly the amount of income raised in corporation tax is a function of the rate and the profits of the firms that pay it (and therefore by implication economic growth). Clearly this is an inexact science particularly when it comes to forecasting over the medium term. Having done a cursory google search (I wasn't Party to writing the Labour manifesto you'll be amazed to learn) they have based their projections on OBR forecasts. The OBR are not known for their accuracy but if you can point me in the direction of reputable economic forecasters who are I'll be sure to pass that information on to Labour HQ.

1 minute ago, kowenicki said:

 

Its both. It can be both. 

 

You havent answered my earlier question on the labour claim of direct correlation between the rise in corp tax and the revenue it will generate. 

 

Are labour correct that they will definitely be directly proportionate. 

I didn't make that statement - yesterday you criticised me for butting in on a debate you were having worth someone else now you're encouraging me to. Make your fucking mind up.

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

that's just rubbish isn't it.  an over simplified generalisation.

Over simplified generalisation or rubbish. Make you're mind up there's a world of difference.

4 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I'd say there are too many facts. Not all of them actual facts. 

Fake news?

2 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Who is asking you to brag.  I'm just wondering what shapes your polarised and aggressive view.  I find it interesting.

I'd have a wild guess at social injustice if I had to. It's why the left are perceived as shouty and noisy, they tend to believe passionately in their cause while the other side tend to be slightly ashamed.

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

As predicted by everyone that isn't a politician.  We had the best performance in 2016 and this was predicted by every major commentator/analyst to slip in 2017.

And? I was just pointing out that the trend he is observing isn't likely to continue.

Britain's economic growth has just slipped to the bottom of the G7 so don't expect that to last.

3 minutes ago, leeslover said:

If there's one thing we can all agree on, the Tories have made a right pigs are of the campaign 

It's virtually unprecedented, the start of the campaign WAS Theresa May. Nobody else got a mention, now they're fighting tooth and nail to keep her from each and every media appearance. 

9 minutes ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

I sort of can. I like McDonnell's views on Irish republicanism. Not to everyone's taste, but I see his point. (I've heard an absolutely belting rumour about him and the IRA back in the 1990s.)

 

I like John McDonnell...but he's probably being played in the wrong position just now. I'd rather have him on the picket line or at the rally, megaphone in hand, telling the striking workers they're alright by him.

 

I like Diane Abbott too, up to a point. She's obviously a bit of a dick, but so is Amber Rudd, and so is Theresa May. She's not to everyone's taste - obviously - but black women who, for instance, call the Met police out for this or that indiscretion don't always win popularity contests.

 

I like Emily Thornberry too. I understand how she can get up some people's noses, but clever, rich and combative women don't always win popularity contests.

 

The choice is would you rather have Rudd, Boris fucking Johnson and Hammond, or Abbott, Thornberry and McDonnell. I go for the last three every time. 

I would probably agree with that analysis notwithstanding knowing nothing about any rumours around McDonnell and the IRA. Interesting he asked about those 3 and not Corbyn himself, who's popularity is absolutely infuriating Paul Dacre, or Barry Gardiner, MVP of the entire campaign on all sides or Andrew Gwynne another who has decimated various Tories during the campaign.

And now a Tory candidate has been charged over election fraud. Oh dear.

Perhaps they're preferable to the party whose leader refuses to sign a letter condemning Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement and whose manifesto offers unprecedented support for the fossil fuel industries whilst trousering £400k in donations from oil barons.

just a thought.

4 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

aaaaand another insult.

 

Yeah I am. Totally. You got me big man.  

 

(Says the man man with his multitude of non exec roles on boards... pro bono hero of the people) 

 

 

 

 

One of them has charitable objectives so I do chair their Audit Committee pro bono. I'm surprised you are familiar with the concept.

5 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

There you go.  Snide idiotic remarks. #itswhattheleftdo

 

 

Nobody's reading your hashtags you pretentious weapon.

You claim to have come from the poorest background of anybody on this Board and to have paid more tax than most of us will pay in our lifetime, both of which are entirely beyond proof. You're just making stuff up, at least you've found your natural home politically.

3 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

I see the new champion of the left, Mr Lineker will face a hefty tax bill after evaded tax through a bogus scheme.  Doubt he will tweet about this one.  Geldof and Ant & Dec also used it.. no doubt another group of Corbyn fans.  Fucking hypocrites all of them. 

This post brought to you by the Wolf of George St. It's his field you know.

20 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

I almost certainly come from a poorer background than everyone here too.  Birds custard for tea and hiding from the rent man behind the sofa.   

 

Some of us strive, some of us moan and demand we are funded to stay where we are.  The left prefer the latter, keeps their support strong. 

??you're on an Oldham message Board, claiming that you almost certainly come from a poorer background than everyone here is just your little fantasy isn't it. You cannot possibly know. 

42 minutes ago, View Of Golden Gate said:

 

My liege,

 

you should have said you pay more tax than any of ever will, your opinion is now worth more. When Tories ask "why does no-one like us?" I present Exhibit A. 

He's probably the type to sack his fleet of PA's if they mis book his next flight to Wall St and he has to turn right not left when he boards the plane. Assuming he hasn't got more private jets than the rest of us will ever have of course.