Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
I suspect that the SNP will do all it can to avoid the Saintly Nicola from carrying the can for anything.
Which will be aided by her remembering nothing.
What a supremely talented liar she is.
She is on the hook for the finances as party leader so no useful idiot to push under the bus.
So she is going to have to sell the motorhome that she owns but can't drive?
I doubt she bought it with her own money, but who knows suppose lots of people who cannot drive fork out 110K for a motorhome and then park it at in-Laws for 2 years.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
I suspect that the SNP will do all it can to avoid the Saintly Nicola from carrying the can for anything.
Which will be aided by her remembering nothing.
What a supremely talented liar she is.
She is on the hook for the finances as party leader so no useful idiot to push under the bus.
So she is going to have to sell the motorhome that she owns but can't drive?
That motorhome is heading to a polis auction in a couple of years’ time. By which time it will have sat idle for four years, and be pretty much worthless.
Be a good buy at auction
Nah, motorhomes are full of bespoke electrics and plumbing, all of which would need to be ripped out and replaced. You’d be way better off buying the van on which it’s based, second hand, and sending that to a coachbuilder. The £110k motorhome will be worth £10k at most.
The same thing happens here in the sandpit with Ferraris. Some tw@ stops paying the bank, and by the time it gets repossessed, it’s been sitting outside in the desert for a year. Bonus points for leaving the windows ajar. It then sits outside for another year while the paperwork gets sorted, then to auction where it goes for pennies on the pound fils on the dirham. The bank gets screwed.
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
No as she is guilty whereas as found by a jury of his peers , he was innocent.
I thought he was found not guilty?
does innocent not equal Not Guilty
Not necessarily. It just shows that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof of guilt. Hence the verdict is "not guilty" or "not proven" rather than "innocent".
Keep dancing on that pin head
I don't think it is Malcolm. For instance if you bring a civil case for the same thing you could be found liable in the civil case but not guilty in the criminal case because they have different burdens of proof and it is far from unknown for this to happen.
The civil courts may well in the long run be where a whole range of sexual offences could end up one day. Unless and until the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) changes a huge range of sexual offences other than the 'stranger dragging into bushes/abduction' type are doomed to failure for reasons (sadly) all too obvious.
It is quite possible that faced with decades of 5% of rape allegations ending in a conviction the attitude will shift to doing justice through the simpler civil standard of proof (balance of probability), and bankrupting the bloke.
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
I suspect that the SNP will do all it can to avoid the Saintly Nicola from carrying the can for anything.
Which will be aided by her remembering nothing.
What a supremely talented liar she is.
She is on the hook for the finances as party leader so no useful idiot to push under the bus.
So she is going to have to sell the motorhome that she owns but can't drive?
I doubt she bought it with her own money, but who knows suppose lots of people who cannot drive fork out 110K for a motorhome and then park it at in-Laws for 2 years.
Ther ewill be a good few on the NEC that will be responsible for all the missing money , and hopefully have to pay it out of their own pockets.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
It’s a consequence of 24-hour opening. There’s a daily price update to the tills, and the night shift need to make sure all the labels are right. Sometimes they miss one, and it’s caught with a complaint. The prices that are lower at the till than the shelf, they never complain.
Any Tory Association (or whatever they're called) may hesitate before anointing Boris. Yes, they get the glamour and attention, and a proven winner. But they also know, presumably, that if elected he would be an absentee MP (either making money or on holiday) for the subsequent 4/5 years, and do the bare minimum for his constituency and for his constituents.
Yes, but it’s sadly true that both constituency associations and local voters like having an MP with notability, even notoriety. I presume they think it puts them on the map.
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
No as she is guilty whereas as found by a jury of his peers , he was innocent.
I thought he was found not guilty?
does innocent not equal Not Guilty
Not necessarily. It just shows that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof of guilt. Hence the verdict is "not guilty" or "not proven" rather than "innocent".
Keep dancing on that pin head
I don't think it is Malcolm. For instance if you bring a civil case for the same thing you could be found liable in the civil case but not guilty in the criminal case because they have different burdens of proof and it is far from unknown for this to happen.
The civil courts may well in the long run be where a whole range of sexual offences could end up one day. Unless and until the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) changes a huge range of sexual offences other than the 'stranger dragging into bushes/abduction' type are doomed to failure for reasons (sadly) all too obvious.
It is quite possible that faced with decades of 5% of rape allegations ending in a conviction the attitude will shift to doing justice through the simpler civil standard of proof (balance of probability), and bankrupting the bloke.
That requires the victim to either put up several grand in legal fees, or have an agreement that the lawyer takes half of the compensation. Most of which will never be collected, as the guy will be bankrupted.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
I'm assuming catastrofuck as opposed to conspiracy. Things are *a mess* at Asda House at the moment, and a disconnect between retail prices on the system and the Shelf Edge Label machine keeping up is hardly new. Stuff like this happens when retailers lose the ability to do the basics.
My village McColls as the chain was going under had the same. Prices would update on the system but no new SELs or promo stickers to reflect the new reality. Or the blessed final weeks of KwikSave when trucks would turn up to stores at random with 'WTF is this' products in cages with no clue what the retail price should be.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
"Making sure" is promising the legislation will not just be passed but be effective too.
"On a personal level, this decision has not been easy, but it is the right decision to avoid further distraction to the important work being led by Humza Yousaf to improve the SNP’s governance and transparency."
Not been easy? Bullshit. You shouldn't still have been in either role as your positions were completely untenable at the point you got your collar felt.
As for the important work on improving governance and transparency, pull the other one. He defended your positions yesterday afternoon, an utterly indefensible and ludicrous thing to do.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful.
You failing to get it certainly is.
Or would be if not for the strong suspicion that you're only pretending not to get it.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
It’s a consequence of 24-hour opening. There’s a daily price update to the tills, and the night shift need to make sure all the labels are right. Sometimes they miss one, and it’s caught with a complaint. The prices that are lower at the till than the shelf, they never complain.
Lol.
libertarian right winger chimes in to rationalise theft.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
Surely the job of being Home Secretary by it's very nature is one where no-one could ever be popular?
The best you could hope for is being regarded as competent enough to get into No 10 if the opportunity arises (see a certain T May).
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
Read. The. Pledge. It is not "We will pass new laws". It is "We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The objective is not to pass new legislation. The objective is to Stop The Boats aided by the new legislation. They even added the extra clauses describing specifically what will happen to refugees. Stop The Boats is the pledge, hence standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern saying we will Stop The Boats.
The legislation is merely the tool to allow them to Stop The Boats. Nobody gives a rat fuck about new legislation. They just want foreigners to stop invading.
Incidentally, as your suggestion is that the electorate have falsely elevated expectations that the government will Stop The Boats when all they will do is pass a new law, do you not think having Stop The Boats as the summary of this pledge on their graphics, having Stop The Boats on the lectern and continually saying "We will Stop The Boats" is a bit of a problem?
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
No as she is guilty whereas as found by a jury of his peers , he was innocent.
I thought he was found not guilty?
does innocent not equal Not Guilty
Not necessarily. It just shows that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof of guilt. Hence the verdict is "not guilty" or "not proven" rather than "innocent".
Keep dancing on that pin head
I don't think it is Malcolm. For instance if you bring a civil case for the same thing you could be found liable in the civil case but not guilty in the criminal case because they have different burdens of proof and it is far from unknown for this to happen.
The civil courts may well in the long run be where a whole range of sexual offences could end up one day. Unless and until the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) changes a huge range of sexual offences other than the 'stranger dragging into bushes/abduction' type are doomed to failure for reasons (sadly) all too obvious.
It is quite possible that faced with decades of 5% of rape allegations ending in a conviction the attitude will shift to doing justice through the simpler civil standard of proof (balance of probability), and bankrupting the bloke.
That requires the victim to either put up several grand in legal fees, or have an agreement that the lawyer takes half of the compensation. Most of which will never be collected, as the guy will be bankrupted.
Yes. The change would come when governments acknowledge the undeniable truth of the problem, and that it cannot be justly solved in the criminal realm, and put big money behind a civil system in parallel.
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
Theresa got a few plaudits, albeit mostly for her longevity.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
That's always been the case. At least with S&G you can check everything as you scan it, you don't have to rely on happening to notice it at the till.
Are there any supermarkets in the UK that let you ’scan and go’, without having previously signed up for some ‘loyalty’ scheme?
Yeah, Asda. All you have to give them is a phone number and email address, it's not (yet) linked to their new rewards scheme. Which is annoying, as you have to remember to scan the app at the till separately.
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
Surely the job of being Home Secretary by it's very nature is one where no-one could ever be popular?
The best you could hope for is being regarded as competent enough to get into No 10 if the opportunity arises (see a certain T May).
Legalise soft drugs, use the extra police capacity to start reforming the police and the court capacity to deal with migration backlog. You'd get some favourables from various unaligned groups, I think a good communicator doing that mix could become quite popular.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
I suspect that the SNP will do all it can to avoid the Saintly Nicola from carrying the can for anything.
Which will be aided by her remembering nothing.
What a supremely talented liar she is.
She is on the hook for the finances as party leader so no useful idiot to push under the bus.
So she is going to have to sell the motorhome that she owns but can't drive?
That motorhome is heading to a polis auction in a couple of years’ time. By which time it will have sat idle for four years, and be pretty much worthless.
I very much doubt it will be worthless.
It would make a good allotment shed.
Or maybe a mobile museum to the late-lamented SNP.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
Oh I get it alright. Keep digging old love. Besides, we will get far better attempts to pretend they pledged no such thing as the year goes on.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
Oh I get it alright. Keep digging old love. Besides, we will get far better attempts to pretend they pledged no such thing as the year goes on.
And when we do, don't you dare say I didn't warn you that was going to happen.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
Oh I get it alright. Keep digging old love. Besides, we will get far better attempts to pretend they pledged no such thing as the year goes on.
And when we do, don't you dare say I didn't warn you that was going to happen.
Huh? What warning? That the Tories lie? We know that. Its just that when you say the Tories didn't pledge to Stop The Boats I wonder why we saw this on Tuesday
They - and you - can say what they like about how that wasn't actually a pledge. Not really. It's just that we all have eyes and a brain, so... Where they will really struggle is when they are failing on most of their priorities. Excuses won't cut it, not when Sunak said judge me on these priorities.
Richard Sharp’s future as chairman of the BBC looks increasingly in doubt ahead of a potentially “damning” report into his appointment.
The former Goldman Sachs banker was summoned earlier this month to see Adam Heppinstall KC, the barrister who is conducting an investigation into the appointment process on behalf of the Commons’ public appointments committee.
Heppinstall, who was asked to oversee the investigation in early February, is expected to publish his findings within the next few days, having already shared some of the material with Sharp.
One individual familiar with the content of the report said that the findings were “damning”, adding: “When it’s all laid out clearly, it exposes just how extraordinary the whole episode is.”
Rishi Sunak last month declined to say he had confidence in Sharp’s chairmanship, instead saying he was waiting for Heppinstall’s review to conclude.
Though Sharp was appointed BBC chairman under Boris Johnson’s government, he has known Sunak for many years too. Sharp is understood to have seen some of the report’s early findings, which have set out several discoveries “including some unwelcome elements”.
Sharp was Sunak’s boss when the future prime minister was a junior banker at Goldman Sachs. During the pandemic Sunak hired Sharp as an unpaid adviser on the government’s economic response.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
@YouGov Overall, do you think that Suella Braverman is doing well or badly in her role as home secretary?
All Britons Well: 19% Badly: 50%
Con voters Well: 42% Badly: 33%
I don’t believe 50% of Brits know who she is. I also don’t believe that 42% of Tory *voters* do.
She's been on TV a lot, but I agree that some are responding more to "Do you think the Home Secretary (whoever it is) is doing a good job?" That's a question that rarely gets an enthusiastic answer for any incumbent. When was the last really popular HS?
Theresa got a few plaudits, albeit mostly for her longevity.
Given that she did the job for seven years, when the life expectancy of an HS was about 18 months for a decade beforehand…
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
I will admit that I am a sucker for pledge lists. Line up a series of core policies and principles and focus relentlessly on them. Opponents can try and distract and divert, but 5 pledges makes it simple.
Unless you don't deliver them: 1. "Halve Inflation" - looks unrealistic already. 2. "Grow the Economy" - we are stagflating - I'm sure we will get growth this year and they will crow about it, but will be paper growth vs lived reality will make them look out of touch with normal people (already a Sunak problem) 3. "Reduce Debt" - unless the write off the debt owed by to themselves how will they achieve this when points 1 and 2 are missed? 4. "Cut Waiting Lists" which get longer when the NHS is beset by strikes driven by the failure of pledge 1. 5. Stop The Boats. Already conceded is the sub-pledge to deport people 28 days from more than 28 days ago. Boat crossings increasing not decreasing.
I know there is a dream that things turn around in 2023 then a giveaway budget leads to a 1992 redux triumph. But isn't it hard to do that if you fail on your Power 5 from this year? How do we believe their pledges in 2024 if they failed in 2023?
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
That's always been the case. At least with S&G you can check everything as you scan it, you don't have to rely on happening to notice it at the till.
Are there any supermarkets in the UK that let you ’scan and go’, without having previously signed up for some ‘loyalty’ scheme?
Yeah, Asda. All you have to give them is a phone number and email address, it's not (yet) linked to their new rewards scheme. Which is annoying, as you have to remember to scan the app at the till separately.
But why the f*** should you need to give them your phone number and email address?
They tried the same data collection vs convenience as all the other supermarkets, but managed to f*** it up so badly that they collect the data and struggle to use it?
Will he still want to be an MP once the book advance cheque has cleared, and the Americans are offering $250k a speech?
The theory seems to be he needs the attention, but he will not have a problem getting that outside of Parliament. Or that if the Tories do not lose by much in 2024 that he will want to be there to pick up the pieces so he can get back in after Labour fail to last a full term. That seems a lot for him to gamble on, potentially signing up for 5 years of irrelevance.
True fact Donald Trump has now personally cost Rupert Murdoch nearly 800 million dollars, it is public knowledge he despises the man, and yet you can still bet your house his network is going to simp for him all the way to 2024. I believe "cucked" is the word the Right like to use here. https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1648460852327231491?cxt=HHwWhsDRkamaweAtAAAA
Plenty of 'this is a good outcome for Fox takes out there, but to me it seems to confuse the fact that they can indeed afford a huge settlement like this, with it therefore being no big deal that they're out the better part of a billion dollars.
I can afford a £100 fine, but I'd still be annoyed if I had to pay it.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
That's always been the case. At least with S&G you can check everything as you scan it, you don't have to rely on happening to notice it at the till.
Are there any supermarkets in the UK that let you ’scan and go’, without having previously signed up for some ‘loyalty’ scheme?
Yeah, Asda. All you have to give them is a phone number and email address, it's not (yet) linked to their new rewards scheme. Which is annoying, as you have to remember to scan the app at the till separately.
But why the f*** should you need to give them your phone number and email address?
They tried the same data collection vs convenience as all the other supermarkets, but managed to f*** it up so badly that they collect the data and struggle to use it?
Because that's how the world works. I've long since given up worrying about it, it's not going to change. If you've ever ordered anything for delivery they have your email address and phone number anyway.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
Re-read what I wrote. I'll bold the key word just in case you've missed it on the first two occasions I wrote this, rather than ignoring it because it debunks your point:
Labour's instincts to open the borders
That Labour (and the wider Left) have such instincts is surely not a matter of any controversy, no matter what they may or may not be saying at any particular point in time?
I've said this government couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate, here's more proof.
Technology bosses accused the government of being “distracted” after the minister who was due to launch the long-delayed semiconductor strategy this week confirmed that he was considering running as mayor of London.
Paul Scully, the minister for tech and the digital economy, was expected to outline the plan for the UK’s microchip industry at the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult just outside Newport tomorrow. However, sources said he pulled out on Monday, and then yesterday the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam confirmed he was mulling over his potential candidacy.
Dr Simon Thomas, chief executive of Paragraf, a Cambridge-based semiconductor business said, he was dismayed by yet another setback: “I am disappointed and angry with the government and the minister. He is clearly being distracted by his other career plans.”
One source said the cancellation of the ministerial visit was because of confusion over who would replace Michelle Donelan, the science, innovation and technology secretary, who is on maternity leave, and therefore who should make the important announcement.
A technology entrepreneur who declined to be named said this was extraordinary, adding: “It’s not as if her pregnancy is news to anyone. They could have planned this ages ago. The government has trouble factoring in a nine-month gestation?”
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Any guesses as to when the Sturgeon will be arrested? If she is, will she get off the hook, like Salmond?
No as she is guilty whereas as found by a jury of his peers , he was innocent.
I thought he was found not guilty?
does innocent not equal Not Guilty
Not necessarily. It just shows that the prosecution failed to reach the required standard of proof of guilt. Hence the verdict is "not guilty" or "not proven" rather than "innocent".
Keep dancing on that pin head
I don't think it is Malcolm. For instance if you bring a civil case for the same thing you could be found liable in the civil case but not guilty in the criminal case because they have different burdens of proof and it is far from unknown for this to happen.
The civil courts may well in the long run be where a whole range of sexual offences could end up one day. Unless and until the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) changes a huge range of sexual offences other than the 'stranger dragging into bushes/abduction' type are doomed to failure for reasons (sadly) all too obvious.
It is quite possible that faced with decades of 5% of rape allegations ending in a conviction the attitude will shift to doing justice through the simpler civil standard of proof (balance of probability), and bankrupting the bloke.
That requires the victim to either put up several grand in legal fees, or have an agreement that the lawyer takes half of the compensation. Most of which will never be collected, as the guy will be bankrupted.
Yes. The change would come when governments acknowledge the undeniable truth of the problem, and that it cannot be justly solved in the criminal realm, and put big money behind a civil system in parallel.
So you suggest that the government should fund civil lawsuits? That might result in the need to fund half a million judges, and several million new lawyers.
Can we not all agree, that we have too many lawyers already?
True fact Donald Trump has now personally cost Rupert Murdoch nearly 800 million dollars, it is public knowledge he despises the man, and yet you can still bet your house his network is going to simp for him all the way to 2024. I believe "cucked" is the word the Right like to use here. https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1648460852327231491?cxt=HHwWhsDRkamaweAtAAAA
Plenty of 'this is a good outcome for Fox takes out there, but to me it seems to confuse the fact that they can indeed afford a huge settlement like this, with it therefore being no big deal that they're out the better part of a billion dollars.
I can afford a £100 fine, but I'd still be annoyed if I had to pay it.
It's hardly a good look when there is a second case coming up where Smartmatic are seeking twice what Dominion were seeking from Fox.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
Drakeford and Welsh labour, which Starmer continually praises, have the solution by paying the immigrants £1,600 per month and their legal fees to defend any deportation moves
This was referred to in PMQs and Starmer looked distinctly uncomfortable
Also Guido reports changes to the IMB have been agreed with conservative rebels
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
Insiders insist police advised the cabinet minister to find somewhere private to take his smoking breaks within the levelling up department office because a secure area within the building did not exist. The hut was not constructed at Gove’s request.
This looks like one of those occasions where the story write up is not unreasonable toward the target, but the obvious hope of the partisan is that people won't go beyond the headline.
Especially as it would be easy enough to combine the two sentences below - the headline and subheading - in such a way that the explanation is included. Like how they include direct accusations, but clarifying someone (experts/scientists/celebrity etc) said it, not them. Michael Gove has taxpayer-funded smoking hut on roof of his office
Den was built for levelling up secretary after he was heckled in street and targeted by terrorist
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
I will admit that I am a sucker for pledge lists. Line up a series of core policies and principles and focus relentlessly on them. Opponents can try and distract and divert, but 5 pledges makes it simple.
Unless you don't deliver them: 1. "Halve Inflation" - looks unrealistic already. 2. "Grow the Economy" - we are stagflating - I'm sure we will get growth this year and they will crow about it, but will be paper growth vs lived reality will make them look out of touch with normal people (already a Sunak problem) 3. "Reduce Debt" - unless the write off the debt owed by to themselves how will they achieve this when points 1 and 2 are missed? 4. "Cut Waiting Lists" which get longer when the NHS is beset by strikes driven by the failure of pledge 1. 5. Stop The Boats. Already conceded is the sub-pledge to deport people 28 days from more than 28 days ago. Boat crossings increasing not decreasing.
I know there is a dream that things turn around in 2023 then a giveaway budget leads to a 1992 redux triumph. But isn't it hard to do that if you fail on your Power 5 from this year? How do we believe their pledges in 2024 if they failed in 2023?
Actually #1 is the only one that they have little chance of missing. Inflation is currently running at an annualised pace of about 6%; once you factor in the y/y reductions in energy prices likely to kick in in Q3 then they should get y/y inflation below 5%, ie halved from 10%. #2 is a bit iffy if central banks including the BOE need to induce a recession to get inflation back to 2%. #3 almost certainly won't happen in literal terms, debt will go up - but it might go down as a % of GDP which is I imagine what they actually mean - and even this might not happen if we do go into recession. #4 don't hold your breath, the NHS is on its knees. #5 not happening as discussed above.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
That's always been the case. At least with S&G you can check everything as you scan it, you don't have to rely on happening to notice it at the till.
Are there any supermarkets in the UK that let you ’scan and go’, without having previously signed up for some ‘loyalty’ scheme?
Yeah, Asda. All you have to give them is a phone number and email address, it's not (yet) linked to their new rewards scheme. Which is annoying, as you have to remember to scan the app at the till separately.
But why the f*** should you need to give them your phone number and email address?
They tried the same data collection vs convenience as all the other supermarkets, but managed to f*** it up so badly that they collect the data and struggle to use it?
Because that's how the world works. I've long since given up worrying about it, it's not going to change. If you've ever ordered anything for delivery they have your email address and phone number anyway.
For delivery, yes of course. But why should I need to give out personal details to walk around the shop?
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
That's always been the case. At least with S&G you can check everything as you scan it, you don't have to rely on happening to notice it at the till.
Are there any supermarkets in the UK that let you ’scan and go’, without having previously signed up for some ‘loyalty’ scheme?
Yeah, Asda. All you have to give them is a phone number and email address, it's not (yet) linked to their new rewards scheme. Which is annoying, as you have to remember to scan the app at the till separately.
But why the f*** should you need to give them your phone number and email address?
They tried the same data collection vs convenience as all the other supermarkets, but managed to f*** it up so badly that they collect the data and struggle to use it?
Because that's how the world works. I've long since given up worrying about it, it's not going to change. If you've ever ordered anything for delivery they have your email address and phone number anyway.
For delivery, yes of course. But why should I need to give out personal details to walk around the shop?
You shouldn't. But it's how the world works now. They're not going to give you something for nothing any more than you're going to give them something for nothing.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Must have been a very long time ago this – you can pay with your phone and have been able to do so for many years.
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Must have been a very long time ago this – you can pay with your phone and have been able to do so for many years.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
I used to read the Guardian to get an alternative view of politics. But now it's just unreadable most of the time.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
An Asda spokesperson said: "The process of price changes mean that shelf edge labels should be changed at the same time as they are updated on Scan & Go. If an item scans at a different price as to that shown on the shelf edge label, the customer should alert a colleague who will be able to confirm the correct price to be paid."
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
That being the case, talk about it as little as possible. Change the subject as much as possible.
Political winning is success multiplied by salience. If you have an issue where you know you can't win, don't talk about it any more than you have to.
If a bratty kid wants a pony, and there's no way you can give them a pony, you don't promise them a pony.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
I used to read the Guardian to get an alternative view of politics. But now it's just unreadable most of the time.
Their immigration stories are still good to read, for the “guess the missing fact” competition.
Last week’s was the band who turned up in Calais and thought they could get visit visas when they were working in the UK, then thought they could rely on an exemption but didn’t realise it required paperwork from the venue they were playing, which they didn’t have, so the UK is evil for refusing them entry.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
I used to read the Guardian to get an alternative view of politics. But now it's just unreadable most of the time.
I'm curious how you know it's unreadable if you don't read it.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
I will admit that I am a sucker for pledge lists. Line up a series of core policies and principles and focus relentlessly on them. Opponents can try and distract and divert, but 5 pledges makes it simple.
Unless you don't deliver them: 1. "Halve Inflation" - looks unrealistic already. 2. "Grow the Economy" - we are stagflating - I'm sure we will get growth this year and they will crow about it, but will be paper growth vs lived reality will make them look out of touch with normal people (already a Sunak problem) 3. "Reduce Debt" - unless the write off the debt owed by to themselves how will they achieve this when points 1 and 2 are missed? 4. "Cut Waiting Lists" which get longer when the NHS is beset by strikes driven by the failure of pledge 1. 5. Stop The Boats. Already conceded is the sub-pledge to deport people 28 days from more than 28 days ago. Boat crossings increasing not decreasing.
I know there is a dream that things turn around in 2023 then a giveaway budget leads to a 1992 redux triumph. But isn't it hard to do that if you fail on your Power 5 from this year? How do we believe their pledges in 2024 if they failed in 2023?
Actually #1 is the only one that they have little chance of missing. Inflation is currently running at an annualised pace of about 6%; once you factor in the y/y reductions in energy prices likely to kick in in Q3 then they should get y/y inflation below 5%, ie halved from 10%. #2 is a bit iffy if central banks including the BOE need to induce a recession to get inflation back to 2%. #3 almost certainly won't happen in literal terms, debt will go up - but it might go down as a % of GDP which is I imagine what they actually mean - and even this might not happen if we do go into recession. #4 don't hold your breath, the NHS is on its knees. #5 not happening as discussed above.
Agreed
1. Probably just make it for the reasons set out by OLB, might be 4% to 5% which is good enough for this purpose, 2.9% OBR forecast isn't happening.
There are plenty of reasons to loathe the Tories and greedy politicians in general
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
I'm embarrassed for The Guardian, like this isn't a huge impact on why it it was appropriate.
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
I used to read the Guardian to get an alternative view of politics. But now it's just unreadable most of the time.
It’s in real trouble, long term
The journalism is so WEAK
Here’s an example. A guy writing about the impact of AI on popular music. Good subject. Should be interesting. He knows his stuff. But the opening paragraph is this
“We’re at an inflection point for AI, where it goes from nerdish fixation to general talking point, like the metaverse and NFTs before it”
Yes, we all recall the moment suddenly EVERYONE was talking about “the metaverse”. And who can forget the day we all stopped doing everything to discuss NFTs. That’s exactly like the impact of AI in recent months
It’s nothing to do with politics. It’s poor writing and then poor editing - someone should have told him to go back and do it again. The Guardian is now full of shoddy hack work like this
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Labour doesn't have a plan they have wishy washy soundbites....not a specific plan of what they will do...neither do the tories or the lib dems. They are just hoping will take the flim flam as gospel and believe there is a well thought out program behind it
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Where do you keep your credit/debit cards?
Smartphone case, Andy.
Or the electronic wallet on the phone/watch.
Oh, the fun you could have with a portable EMP device...
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
Where do you keep your credit/debit cards?
In a drawer at home, where they gather dust. Why would I carry them around with me?
Just sold my beloved Mini SUPER black and blue JCW mega car, the car I should've died in at least twice
A weirdly melancholy moment. Bit like losing a pet
Don't know how you found space to park it in central London.
You buy a parking permit! £150 a year from Camden Council
That was one thing that was easy and non hassly. Plenty of spaces
It was everything else that was a source of vexation, except when I was driving it and grooving at the rortiness
I used to drive 50,000 miles in the UK every year, working for a company that sold IT to pubs and restaurants.
The only time I ever had my car towed, was on the Parkway in Camden. Cost me £155 to get it back, and my company would only pay half of it. A load of very confusing signs, that the paid parking finishes at 4pm, after which time it becomes a no waiting zone. The ticket was written at 16:02, and the removal happened at 16:16. It’s two miles’ walk, in the rain as it happened, wearing a suit, from Parkway to the Kentish Town car pound.
Edit: special mention to Westminster, where the metered spaces are free after 18:30, but the single yellows are valid until 19:00. A ticket timed at 18:58 on a single yellow, for £80. Yet no signs on each yellow, you’re supposed to know that as you enter the ‘zone’.
Hate to tell you this now but you could have got the 88 (or C2 as it was probably then) from Parkway and it would have dropped you off 400 yards from the pound.
But sadly I had no means to pay for a bus, my wallet being (unusually) in the glovebox of the car!
Oh f**k.
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
But this was Camden in about 2005. The advise (from the customer) was not to walk down the street with your wallet in your back pocket. Sadly he didn’t give any advise on the damn parkway parking.
I'm amazed that anyone ever does. Front pocket on jeans, inside jacket pocket if I'm wearing a suit.
I'm amazed that anyone carries a wallet at all. They are completely unnecessary.
To keep your huge wad of £10 notes in, obviously. (Please ignore - don't want to re-ignite you on your cash v. card stuff again).
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
If there WAS a Labour plan that WORKED and was POPULAR, it would have already been stolen by government.
So we can assume either Labour's plan will not work. Or is not popular.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Labour doesn't have a plan they have wishy washy soundbites....not a specific plan of what they will do...neither do the tories or the lib dems. They are just hoping will take the flim flam as gospel and believe there is a well thought out program behind it
Your second point is why the 'no plan' attack doesn't work - because usually they have as much a plan as anyone else, even if that is not much of one. It's a plan as far as political plans go.
Which isn't even always a bad thing - how many political plans actually come to fruition, and how many are crap when they do?
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Labour doesn't have a plan they have wishy washy soundbites....not a specific plan of what they will do...neither do the tories or the lib dems. They are just hoping will take the flim flam as gospel and believe there is a well thought out program behind it
Your second point is why the 'no plan' attack doesn't work - because usually they have as much a plan as anyone else, even if that is not much of one. It's a plan as far as political plans go.
Which isn't even always a bad thing - how many political plans actually come to fruition, and how many are crap when they do?
My second point is the whole point....none of our politicians have any idea how to fix shit because they are wedded to the status quo
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
If there WAS a Labour plan that WORKED and was POPULAR, it would have already been stolen by government.
So we can assume either Labour's plan will not work. Or is not popular.
Or indeed, there is no plan.
Agreed?
Potentially. But some ideas might be popular (or at least no unpopular) and yet still politically unacceptable to a government. Stopping the boats is probably popular (though not much of a plan in its own right, and specifics of it might not be), but let's speculate and say that a completely open border became more popular with the majority in the last few months - the government wouldn't steal that approach and policy because it would be very unpopular with key people on its own side.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
Do we even want to devote another thread to the old bluffer ?
We could have a thread about how the current PM is doing on his 5 rock solid pledges:
We will halve inflation this year to ease the cost of living and give people financial security.
We will grow the economy, creating better-paid jobs and opportunity right across the country.
We will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services.
NHS waiting lists will fall and people will get the care they need more quickly.
We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed.
Of those, only 1 and 2 are really quantifiable. 3 and 4 require clarification, and leave a lot of ambiguity.
Which leaves 5. The electorate expect the crossings to actually stop, not politicians talking about stopping the boats or legislating to stop the boats. Australia actually stopped the boats.
If the new laws are robust and seen to be so, the boats stop. Even a 30-70 chance of deportation/Rwanda would probably be enough to stop them completely. You have to question whether Sunak has any real intention of doing anything about it.
Given that he has pledged to "pass new laws" not to "stop the boats", is it really a question?
"We will pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed."
The pledge is to stop the boats by passing new laws, not to pass new laws and that is the end of it. The lectern didn't say "Pass New Laws". It said "Stop The Boats".
It is a very simple pledge. That he cannot deliver. So trying to worm out of it by denying he pledged to Stop The Boats whilst standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern giving an "I will Stop The Boats" speech is brass balls on your part.
Your problem is that people aren't as stupid as you think they are. Yer man said Stop The Boats and they expect the boats to be stopped.
You are correct that he wants people to think he has pledged to stop the boats.
But he's not "my man". I'm just thinking ahead.
No. He doesn't want people to *think* he has pledged to stop the boats.
He HAS pledged to Stop The Boats.
I'm sorry that you can't understand what was written even after it's been explained to you, but I'll try one last time.
The words "pass new laws to" are there for a reason. They don't appear in the other four pledges.
If you don't get it now, you never will.
Painful. What are the laws there to do? Is the objective to pass news laws? Or to deliver what the new laws legislate to do?
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
You’re both right, and both wrong.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
That's exactly what I said, so I'm not sure how I'm wrong.
Just wondering why you are digging in so hard to make excuses for a party you claim not to support. People who can read English know what the pledge is. People who have eyes who see "Stop The Boats" listed as the 5th pledge the other day as Sunak spoke about Maths know what the pledge is.
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
Asked and answered.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
But I think you get the outcome as well, Rishi and Sue looking like weak weaseley failures.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
Because on this subject they have no good outcomes. So the plan to say "we've done anything anyone could" and contrast it with Labour's instincts to open the borders (as I postulated in an earlier comment), courageous though it probably is, may be the least worst outcome for them.
The Tories do keep making all kinds of allegations about the Labour position, which don't line up with the actual Labour position. "They have no plan" doesn't cut it when they have a plan. "Ah but that plan won't work" say Tory rampers whilst clinging to a plan which has already failed.
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
It's a common enough ploy to claim the opposing side have no answers or plans when in fact they do, and since the rest of the time they will attack the opposition for having a bad plan, that suggests to me that they think the plan may be popular, and so they want to confuse the issue by not mentioning the plan, and claiming there isn't one.
If there WAS a Labour plan that WORKED and was POPULAR, it would have already been stolen by government.
So we can assume either Labour's plan will not work. Or is not popular.
Or indeed, there is no plan.
Agreed?
Potentially. But some ideas might be popular (or at least no unpopular) and yet still politically unacceptable to a government. Stopping the boats is probably popular (though not much of a plan in its own right, and specifics of it might not be), but let's speculate and say that a completely open border became more popular with the majority in the last few months - the government wouldn't steal that approach and policy because it would be very unpopular with key people on its own side.
If the Government were serious about stopping the boats, they would ask the Scottish Government and Calmac to implement their policy.
Comments
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/asda-shoppers-outraged-after-noticing-26732126
This is the kind of casual fraud that is the inevitable consequence of 13 years of libertarian Tory ideology.
Trust the market. Unleash competition. Light touch regulation. Defund trading standards.
And then companies blame shoppers and place the burden on us to alert staff and “confirm the correct price” and only refund those who complain.
It stinks.
Now they have to find both a Treasurer and an Auditor...
The same thing happens here in the sandpit with Ferraris. Some tw@ stops paying the bank, and by the time it gets repossessed, it’s been sitting outside in the desert for a year. Bonus points for leaving the windows ajar. It then sits outside for another year while the paperwork gets sorted, then to auction where it goes for pennies on the pound fils on the dirham. The bank gets screwed.
It is quite possible that faced with decades of 5% of rape allegations ending in a conviction the attitude will shift to doing justice through the simpler civil standard of proof (balance of probability), and bankrupting the bloke.
You'd have thought that a Stop The Boats sign on the lectern was a clue. Never mind. I'm sure Tory voters expecting Stop The Boats will be delighted with a new law which does not Stop The Boats.
My village McColls as the chain was going under had the same. Prices would update on the system but no new SELs or promo stickers to reflect the new reality. Or the blessed final weeks of KwikSave when trucks would turn up to stores at random with 'WTF is this' products in cages with no clue what the retail price should be.
The pledge was to pass the legislation, but the expectation of the electorate is that he actually stops the boats.
"Making sure" is promising the legislation will not just be passed but be effective too.
"On a personal level, this decision has not been easy, but it is the right decision to avoid further distraction to the important work being led by Humza Yousaf to improve the SNP’s governance and transparency."
Not been easy? Bullshit. You shouldn't still have been in either role as your positions were completely untenable at the point you got your collar felt.
As for the important work on improving governance and transparency, pull the other one. He defended your positions yesterday afternoon, an utterly indefensible and ludicrous thing to do.
Or would be if not for the strong suspicion that you're only pretending not to get it.
libertarian right winger chimes in to rationalise theft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
The best you could hope for is being regarded as competent enough to get into No 10 if the opportunity arises (see a certain T May).
The objective is not to pass new legislation. The objective is to Stop The Boats aided by the new legislation. They even added the extra clauses describing specifically what will happen to refugees. Stop The Boats is the pledge, hence standing behind a Stop The Boats lectern saying we will Stop The Boats.
The legislation is merely the tool to allow them to Stop The Boats. Nobody gives a rat fuck about new legislation. They just want foreigners to stop invading.
Incidentally, as your suggestion is that the electorate have falsely elevated expectations that the government will Stop The Boats when all they will do is pass a new law, do you not think having Stop The Boats as the summary of this pledge on their graphics, having Stop The Boats on the lectern and continually saying "We will Stop The Boats" is a bit of a problem?
So why are you trying to insist the Tory graphics department have it wrong? And why is Sunak so stupid that he keeps standing next to graphics which say Stop The Boats" and not "Pass New Laws"?
Again, the voters aren't as stupid as you think they are. Sophistry and Pedantry will not win their vote.
I'll leave it there because I'm sure you do get it, no matter how hard you're pretending not to.
Many a Unionist would pay a fiver to visit that.
Now if we can all get it, why can't they? Or is it somehow desirable?
They - and you - can say what they like about how that wasn't actually a pledge. Not really. It's just that we all have eyes and a brain, so... Where they will really struggle is when they are failing on most of their priorities. Excuses won't cut it, not when Sunak said judge me on these priorities.
The former Goldman Sachs banker was summoned earlier this month to see Adam Heppinstall KC, the barrister who is conducting an investigation into the appointment process on behalf of the Commons’ public appointments committee.
Heppinstall, who was asked to oversee the investigation in early February, is expected to publish his findings within the next few days, having already shared some of the material with Sharp.
One individual familiar with the content of the report said that the findings were “damning”, adding: “When it’s all laid out clearly, it exposes just how extraordinary the whole episode is.”
Rishi Sunak last month declined to say he had confidence in Sharp’s chairmanship, instead saying he was waiting for Heppinstall’s review to conclude.
Though Sharp was appointed BBC chairman under Boris Johnson’s government, he has known Sunak for many years too. Sharp is understood to have seen some of the report’s early findings, which have set out several discoveries “including some unwelcome elements”.
Sharp was Sunak’s boss when the future prime minister was a junior banker at Goldman Sachs. During the pandemic Sunak hired Sharp as an unpaid adviser on the government’s economic response.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-to-get-damning-report-within-days-nc0sjq2nc
But never ever leave your wallet on the car....
I'm not sure "THE TORIES WILL SURELY FIND A WAY FOR BOJO TO REMAIN AN MP" is catchier, though it probably fits as a subset of the original.
Unless you don't deliver them:
1. "Halve Inflation" - looks unrealistic already.
2. "Grow the Economy" - we are stagflating - I'm sure we will get growth this year and they will crow about it, but will be paper growth vs lived reality will make them look out of touch with normal people (already a Sunak problem)
3. "Reduce Debt" - unless the write off the debt owed by to themselves how will they achieve this when points 1 and 2 are missed?
4. "Cut Waiting Lists" which get longer when the NHS is beset by strikes driven by the failure of pledge 1.
5. Stop The Boats. Already conceded is the sub-pledge to deport people 28 days from more than 28 days ago. Boat crossings increasing not decreasing.
I know there is a dream that things turn around in 2023 then a giveaway budget leads to a 1992 redux triumph. But isn't it hard to do that if you fail on your Power 5 from this year? How do we believe their pledges in 2024 if they failed in 2023?
They tried the same data collection vs convenience as all the other supermarkets, but managed to f*** it up so badly that they collect the data and struggle to use it?
Donald Trump has now personally cost Rupert Murdoch nearly 800 million dollars, it is public knowledge he despises the man, and yet you can still bet your house his network is going to simp for him all the way to 2024. I believe "cucked" is the word the Right like to use here.
https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1648460852327231491?cxt=HHwWhsDRkamaweAtAAAA
Plenty of 'this is a good outcome for Fox takes out there, but to me it seems to confuse the fact that they can indeed afford a huge settlement like this, with it therefore being no big deal that they're out the better part of a billion dollars.
I can afford a £100 fine, but I'd still be annoyed if I had to pay it.
https://apnews.com/article/maine-interstate-shooting-3b108fc70e19e325bd0dcf565ab3a4ed
I'm not saying Labour have a magic bullet plan. But they do have a plan. The only Tory attack is "They have no plan". Your "they want to open the borders" point is another saying it doesn't make it real position. You and the Tories may *want* them to say that as it makes the Tories look better. But they're not saying that. They're saying the opposite.
Don't worry, soon ReFUK will be here with the Farage plan to Stop The Boats by simply sinking them.
https://caltonjock.com/2023/04/17/over-two-thirds-of-special-advisers-are-friends-with-or-the-partners-of-senior-snp-politicians-or-party-influencers-and-are-an-elite-bunch-of-chancers-slipped-into-positions-of-power-and-influence-th/
The national debt one in particular seems to assume something more like a 10 year timescale at least.
Labour's instincts to open the borders
That Labour (and the wider Left) have such instincts is surely not a matter of any controversy, no matter what they may or may not be saying at any particular point in time?
Technology bosses accused the government of being “distracted” after the minister who was due to launch the long-delayed semiconductor strategy this week confirmed that he was considering running as mayor of London.
Paul Scully, the minister for tech and the digital economy, was expected to outline the plan for the UK’s microchip industry at the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult just outside Newport tomorrow. However, sources said he pulled out on Monday, and then yesterday the Conservative MP for Sutton and Cheam confirmed he was mulling over his potential candidacy.
Dr Simon Thomas, chief executive of Paragraf, a Cambridge-based semiconductor business said, he was dismayed by yet another setback: “I am disappointed and angry with the government and the minister. He is clearly being distracted by his other career plans.”
One source said the cancellation of the ministerial visit was because of confusion over who would replace Michelle Donelan, the science, innovation and technology secretary, who is on maternity leave, and therefore who should make the important announcement.
A technology entrepreneur who declined to be named said this was extraordinary, adding: “It’s not as if her pregnancy is news to anyone. They could have planned this ages ago. The government has trouble factoring in a nine-month gestation?”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anger-as-ministers-mayoral-ambitions-delay-semiconductor-strategy-3tsx5vbgx
But having a “tax payer funded hut” where you can safely smoke, because you got credible terrorist death threats does not appear in my top 100,000 of those reasons. It’s a hut FFS
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/19/michael-gove-has-taxpayer-funded-smoking-hut-on-roof-of-his-office
Can we not all agree, that we have too many lawyers already?
This was referred to in PMQs and Starmer looked distinctly uncomfortable
Also Guido reports changes to the IMB have been agreed with conservative rebels
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1648721821796057088?t=gDiIZoHJAnAQNqcEUX0vRw&s=19
Insiders insist police advised the cabinet minister to find somewhere private to take his smoking breaks within the levelling up department office because a secure area within the building did not exist. The hut was not constructed at Gove’s request.
This looks like one of those occasions where the story write up is not unreasonable toward the target, but the obvious hope of the partisan is that people won't go beyond the headline.
Especially as it would be easy enough to combine the two sentences below - the headline and subheading - in such a way that the explanation is included. Like how they include direct accusations, but clarifying someone (experts/scientists/celebrity etc) said it, not them.
Michael Gove has taxpayer-funded smoking hut on roof of his office
Den was built for levelling up secretary after he was heckled in street and targeted by terrorist
Gove faced a number of security threats in early 2021, including being targeted by Sir David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, who visited his home on four occasions.
#2 is a bit iffy if central banks including the BOE need to induce a recession to get inflation back to 2%.
#3 almost certainly won't happen in literal terms, debt will go up - but it might go down as a % of GDP which is I imagine what they actually mean - and even this might not happen if we do go into recession.
#4 don't hold your breath, the NHS is on its knees.
#5 not happening as discussed above.
The Guardian is a shameless rag now. So many good journalists have gone. Many chased away by the trans terf wars
Editor Kath Viner meanwhile employs her husband Adrian Chiles to write “why I miss meat pies” and “tea towels are so useful”
Political winning is success multiplied by salience. If you have an issue where you know you can't win, don't talk about it any more than you have to.
If a bratty kid wants a pony, and there's no way you can give them a pony, you don't promise them a pony.
Last week’s was the band who turned up in Calais and thought they could get visit visas when they were working in the UK, then thought they could rely on an exemption but didn’t realise it required paperwork from the venue they were playing, which they didn’t have, so the UK is evil for refusing them entry.
1. Probably just make it for the reasons set out by OLB, might be 4% to 5% which is good enough for this purpose, 2.9% OBR forecast isn't happening.
2 to 5. No chance no hope.
Still not feeling the love for Keir though!
The journalism is so WEAK
Here’s an example. A guy writing about the impact of AI on popular music. Good subject. Should be interesting. He knows his stuff. But the opening paragraph is this
“We’re at an inflection point for AI, where it goes from nerdish fixation to general talking point, like the metaverse and NFTs before it”
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/apr/19/ai-human-music-pop-drake-kanye-west-the-weeknd
Yes, we all recall the moment suddenly EVERYONE was talking about “the metaverse”. And who can forget the day we all stopped doing everything to discuss NFTs. That’s exactly like the impact of AI in recent months
It’s nothing to do with politics. It’s poor writing and then poor editing - someone should have told him to go back and do it again. The Guardian is now full of shoddy hack work like this
(Please ignore - don't want to re-ignite you on your cash v. card stuff again).
So we can assume either Labour's plan will not work. Or is not popular.
Or indeed, there is no plan.
Agreed?
Which isn't even always a bad thing - how many political plans actually come to fruition, and how many are crap when they do?