Perhaps in the same vein we can hope that you never again mention on this site how awful the England cricket team is. You are consistently negative and always call it wrong.
Clearly you don't read what I write about the England cricket team: a world class bowling unit, a poor batting unit. I am entirely positive about our bowlers, who have dug the batsmen out of many a deep hole over recent years, the current Ashes series included. Our poor record of 400 plus scores tells its own story.
You might want to read all of May's speech and think about the message she was trying to get across.
But in any case, if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate, if a large proportion of voters did not identify with them, they would not be useful to other parties.
I have read the entire speech on several occasions, and still think that you are misrepresenting her.
May did not say the Conservatives were the nasty party. Instead she said: "You know what some people call us: the nasty party,"
I'm afraid discussing politics with someone who repeatedly makes that self-serving misquote is rather pointless. You're intelligent enough to understand the difference.
The worst thing about the 'nasty party' meme is that by applying it to the Conservatives, the other parties get a get-out-of-jail free card when they do nasty things. They just say: "But we're not the real nasty party!"
You might want to read all of May's speech and think about the message she was trying to get across.
But in any case, if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate, if a large proportion of voters did not identify with them, they would not be useful to other parties.
I have read the entire speech on several occasions, and still think that you are misrepresenting her.
A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.
No, you are lying.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
That makes absolutely no sense. I give a direct quote, whilst you choose to misquote and misrepresent.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I expect continued low interest rates and the expectation that they will not rise until 16/17 to help fuel a boomlet in consumer spending and to solidify - until after the next GE, at least - a rise in property values. And in the normal course of events I'd expect that to translate into the Tories winning the most seats in 2015. If that does not happen it will be for the reasons I detail below.
You are back-tracking.
I even think it unlikely that consumers will alter their spending patterns on the basis of central bank monetary policy pronouncements.
Even the more cynical market analysts are unconvinced. Here is a response to speculation that the unemployment threshold may be reached in 2015, one to two years before the BoE's expectations:
“Even if there is a trigger, they would probably not hike rates,” said Nick Kounis, head of macro research at ABN Amro Bank NV in Amsterdam. “The circumstances would need to be pretty severe to trigger a relatively early rate hike. They might amend the guidance.”
“There are so many variables now that they can just make up their own story any which way they like,” he said.
Consumers will of course respond to the instruments and impact of monetary policy, such as interest rate levels and credit availability, but most will do so without relating cause to effect.
Job security, new employment, increased pay (even if only through overtime), stable prices, house prices, investment asset values etc., all inputting to a more positive media narrative will have a more direct effect on confidence, spending, perceptions of government competence and voting intention.
We are already beginning to see steady improvements in the subsidiary polling questions related to confidence in the economy and the government's competence in managing it. Even though every so often, a rogue sample in a poll seems to contradict the trend. The key here is the very low starting points of confidence: there is plenty of scope for large shifts of opinion over the next two years.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
That makes absolutely no sense. I give a direct quote, whilst you choose to misquote and misrepresent.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I believe you have chosen to misuote and misrepresent. As I saym we can both play that ridiculus game.
I have tried to post the relevsnt bits cfrom the May speech, but for some reason am not able to. The whoel thing is here:
People can make up their own minds as to what she was getting at. For me, it looks pretty much like a siren call for the Tories to do something about their image as the "nasty party". Others, such as yourself, as perfectly free to disagree.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
That makes absolutely no sense. I give a direct quote, whilst you choose to misquote and misrepresent.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I believe you have chosen to misuote and misrepresent. As I saym we can both play that ridiculus game.
I have tried to post the relevsnt bits cfrom the May speech, but for some reason am not able to. The whoel thing is here:
People can make up their own minds as to what she was getting at. For me, it looks pretty much like a siren call for the Tories to do something about their image as the "nasty party". Others, such as yourself, as perfectly free to disagree.
Your original quote was:
It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party.
But she never, as you claimed, called them the 'nasty party'. She says there was a perception they were the nasty party, and that the perception is unfair.
She called for the perception to be addressed.
There is a difference between saying something is something, and saying that there is a perception that something is something.
What you originally said was wrong. But you will trot it out in another few weeks, as per usual.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
That makes absolutely no sense. I give a direct quote, whilst you choose to misquote and misrepresent.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I believe you have chosen to misuote and misrepresent. As I saym we can both play that ridiculus game.
I have tried to post the relevsnt bits cfrom the May speech, but for some reason am not able to. The whoel thing is here:
People can make up their own minds as to what she was getting at. For me, it looks pretty much like a siren call for the Tories to do something about their image as the "nasty party". Others, such as yourself, as perfectly free to disagree.
Your original quote was:
It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party.
But she never, as you claimed, called them the 'nasty party'. She says there was a perception they were the nasty party, and that the perception is unfair.
She called for the perception to be addressed.
There is a difference between saying something is something, and saying that there is a perception that something is something.
What you originally said was wrong. But you will trot it out in another few weeks, as per usual.
And to think I have been accused of dancing on pinheads!!
Anyway, Ms May clearly disagreed with your notion that there was nothing the Tories could do about their image. Why do you think she was wrong?
That makes absolutely no sense. I give a direct quote, whilst you choose to misquote and misrepresent.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I believe you have chosen to misuote and misrepresent. As I saym we can both play that ridiculus game.
I have tried to post the relevsnt bits cfrom the May speech, but for some reason am not able to. The whoel thing is here:
People can make up their own minds as to what she was getting at. For me, it looks pretty much like a siren call for the Tories to do something about their image as the "nasty party". Others, such as yourself, as perfectly free to disagree.
Your original quote was:
It was the current home secretary who called them the nasty party.
But she never, as you claimed, called them the 'nasty party'. She says there was a perception they were the nasty party, and that the perception is unfair.
She called for the perception to be addressed.
There is a difference between saying something is something, and saying that there is a perception that something is something.
What you originally said was wrong. But you will trot it out in another few weeks, as per usual.
And to think I have been accused of dancing on pinheads!!
Anyway, Ms May clearly disagreed with your notion that there was nothing the Tories could do about their image. Why do you think she was wrong?
No dancing on pinheads. She didn't say what you said she said. I would have thought someone who worked in the patent arena would have been more precise with their use of language.
The truth is, your initial comment was wrong. But you'll repeat it again in the future, and it will be just as wrong.
Which says more about you than it does Mrs May, or even the Conservative party.
Thanks regarding expressing this kind of with all of us you actually learn what you will be talking about! Saved as a favorite. Nicely in addition talk to this site Is equal to). We may have a very url adjust understanding in our midst
Why does Mr Smithson do what he attacks everybody else for by posting small movements within the margin of error as an actual change in position of the parties? Why is there no analysis of the decline in labour average lead from 10 to 6% in short timescale?
Comments
A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.
A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.
No, you are lying.
See, we can both play that silly game. Or we can accept we have different views on what her speech was about.
Either way, the central point remains: if the nasty and toxic memes did not resonate they would have no leverage.
You may want it to be true. You may yearn for it to be true with your entire being.
That does not make it true.
My comment about 'A lie repeated often enough is still a lie.' addresses the resonance you mention. Blair was an expert at mentioning messages repeatedly until they sink into the public's consciousness. That does not make the messages correct or right.
I even think it unlikely that consumers will alter their spending patterns on the basis of central bank monetary policy pronouncements.
Even the more cynical market analysts are unconvinced. Here is a response to speculation that the unemployment threshold may be reached in 2015, one to two years before the BoE's expectations:
“Even if there is a trigger, they would probably not hike rates,” said Nick Kounis, head of macro research at ABN Amro Bank NV in Amsterdam. “The circumstances would need to be pretty severe to trigger a relatively early rate hike. They might amend the guidance.”
“There are so many variables now that they can just make up their own story any which way they like,” he said.
Consumers will of course respond to the instruments and impact of monetary policy, such as interest rate levels and credit availability, but most will do so without relating cause to effect.
Job security, new employment, increased pay (even if only through overtime), stable prices, house prices, investment asset values etc., all inputting to a more positive media narrative will have a more direct effect on confidence, spending, perceptions of government competence and voting intention.
We are already beginning to see steady improvements in the subsidiary polling questions related to confidence in the economy and the government's competence in managing it. Even though every so often, a rogue sample in a poll seems to contradict the trend. The key here is the very low starting points of confidence: there is plenty of scope for large shifts of opinion over the next two years.
I have tried to post the relevsnt bits cfrom the May speech, but for some reason am not able to. The whoel thing is here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/oct/07/conservatives2002.conservatives1
People can make up their own minds as to what she was getting at. For me, it looks pretty much like a siren call for the Tories to do something about their image as the "nasty party". Others, such as yourself, as perfectly free to disagree.
She called for the perception to be addressed.
There is a difference between saying something is something, and saying that there is a perception that something is something.
What you originally said was wrong. But you will trot it out in another few weeks, as per usual.
She called for the perception to be addressed.
There is a difference between saying something is something, and saying that there is a perception that something is something.
What you originally said was wrong. But you will trot it out in another few weeks, as per usual.
And to think I have been accused of dancing on pinheads!!
Anyway, Ms May clearly disagreed with your notion that there was nothing the Tories could do about their image. Why do you think she was wrong?
Anyway, Ms May clearly disagreed with your notion that there was nothing the Tories could do about their image. Why do you think she was wrong?
No dancing on pinheads. She didn't say what you said she said. I would have thought someone who worked in the patent arena would have been more precise with their use of language.
The truth is, your initial comment was wrong. But you'll repeat it again in the future, and it will be just as wrong.
Which says more about you than it does Mrs May, or even the Conservative party.
Job