Jump to content

General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!


Frank Grimes

X in the box for   

467 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

General election 2019: Nicola Sturgeon interview fact-checked

Sturgeon right on all counts, shock.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/50552295?__twitter_impression=true

Hardly. 

The article states that whilst it could be argued that she was being factual in each of the areas that wasn't the completely truthful picture. 

It's no surprise thats how it went though. The SNP has become very adept at spinning half truths and in seeking out a glimmer of good news in a bad news story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The OP said:

I generally defend him on this issue but there was one thing an opponent in an argument pointed out which gave me pause for thought. With no evidence (on Iranian TV) he insinuated that an attack by Islamic jihadists on the Egpytian army was actually an Israeli attempt to destabilise the Egyptian government. Whereas he demanded evidence of Russian involvement in Salisbury before pointing the finger of blame when they already looked as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo. 

When you start getting into unevidenced conspiracy theories where Israel are behind false flag attacks you are drifting very close to crackpot antisemitism and the double standard over evidence requirements is slightly suspicious. 

On the Russia point, I think it's an oversimplification. He basically said we should go through the procedure and engage with the international framework, facilitating the legal requests made by Russia to analyse samples. It was nowhere near an extreme point of view IMO. If you have evidence someone has done something like that, you don't expedite the process and give them extra ammunition and accusations of the process being illegitimate etc.

The Egypt comments were stupid though. I think that and the commenting on the Facebook photo of the guys mural with all the big noses, star of david and illuminati symbols are the examples that are genuinely quite bad. He did in fairness apologise for the second and maybe has some plausible deniability that he didn't quite grasp what he was engaging with but with all the sensitivities about the issue, it's hard to phantom how he felt it was appropriate at the time to go peddling theories like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General election 2019: Nicola Sturgeon interview fact-checked

Sturgeon right on all counts, shock.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/50552295?__twitter_impression=true
That fact-check says that:

"The Audit Scotland report Ms Sturgeon was referring to did find that the number of people seen on time went up.

But that is because the demand was higher - so there were more patients overall."

I'm struggling to figure that out. On the assumption that we aren't in a situation where supply of appointments, treatment etc. previously outstripped demand then an increase in demand couldn't be the reason that more people were seen. There must have also been more appointments, treatments etc. made available/more efficiently allocated.

Or am I just being a bit dense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Claim: "Almost all of the polls show increasing support for Scottish independence"

Reality Check: According to the polling data collected by What Scotland Thinks, there has been an increase in support for independence if a second referendum were held now.

Excluding "don't knows", the average of polls this year has been 51% for No to 49% for Yes - extremely close but still marginal support for remaining in the union.

Looking good for the gammons 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The UK economy needs reform. For too long it has prioritised consumption over investment, short-term financial returns over long-term innovation, rising asset values over rising wages, and deficit reduction over the quality of public services.

The results are now plain. We have had 10 years of near zero productivity growth. Corporate investment has stagnated. Average earnings are still lower than in 2008. A gulf has arisen between London and the South East and the rest of the country. And public services are under intolerable strain — which the economic costs of a hard Brexit would only make worse. We now moreover face the urgent imperative of acting on the climate and environmental crisis.

Given private sector reluctance, what the UK economy needs is a serious injection of public investment, which can in turn leverage private finance attracted by the expectation of higher demand. Such investment needs to be directed into the large-scale and rapid decarbonisation of energy, transport, housing, industry and farming; the support of innovation- and export-oriented businesses; and public services. It is clear that this will require an active and green industrial strategy, aimed at improving productivity and spreading investment across the country.

Experience elsewhere (not least in Germany) suggests a National Investment Bank would greatly help. With long-term real interest rates now negative, it makes basic economic sense for the government to borrow for this, spreading the cost over the generations who will benefit from the assets. As the IMF has acknowledged, when interest payments are low and investment raises economic growth, public debt is sustainable.

At the same time, we need a serious attempt to raise wages and productivity. A higher minimum wage can help do this, alongside tighter regulation of the worst practices in the gig economy. Bringing workers on to company boards and giving them a stake in their companies, as most European countries do in some form, will also help. The UK’s outlier rate of corporation tax can clearly be raised, not least for the highly profitable digital companies.

As economists, and people who work in various fields of economic policy, we have looked closely at the economic prospectuses of the political parties. It seems clear to us that the Labour party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government.

A letter in the FT today from 163 economists (although apparently Paul Mason signed it so maybe 162)

There is genuinely no argument against what they are saying. Brexit has got the Tories out of a hole on not having to defend their abysmal economic record. No government of a decade should be able to survive wages being lower than they were 11 years ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The SNP have got you absolutely seething and it’s wonderful. All you’re capable of is posting daft anti-SNP pictures - very tragic indeed.


Looks like your the one that’s seething.
Has that useless SNP incompetent Health Minister
Chucked it yet ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paco said:

Sturgeon was floundering at parts last night and anyone not devoted to the cause could see that.

I suspect it’ll be much the same for the other party leaders, including Johnson because Neil is an obnoxious c**t to everyone, but that should be no real comfort. As ever with these things I doubt many, if any, are watching and deciding how to vote as a result, which is about the only positive Sturgeon can take from that.

 

Yeah it's like the debates. People just watch it to confirm their beliefs. You can see that on here and on Twitter, most uber Nationalists will claim Neil was unfair, bring up his political leanings etc to try and excuse Sturgeon. Unionists will claim she got destroyed. And there's a small minority in the middle.

Regardless of his questioning technique (which he uses on everybody) all the issues brought up by Neil were absolutely fair and she struggled to answer most of them. They are all things that are going to be questioned when we get a 2nd referendum and we better have better answers ready if we are going to win. All the things she was asked about are pretty fundamental to the case of independence. Things like this should be used as an opportunity to learn how to present a better case, not play the victim card or be utter delusional in thinking Sturgeon did well. If she had given that interview a week before a 2nd referendum it could have been catastrophic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Yeah it's like the debates. People just watch it to confirm their beliefs. You can see that on here and on Twitter, most uber Nationalists will claim Neil was unfair, bring up his political leanings etc to try and excuse Sturgeon. Unionists will claim she got destroyed. And there's a small minority in the middle.

Regardless of his questioning technique (which he uses on everybody) all the issues brought up by Neil were absolutely fair and she struggled to answer most of them. They are all things that are going to be questioned when we get a 2nd referendum and we better have better answers ready if we are going to win. All the things she was asked about are pretty fundamental to the case of independence. Things like this should be used as an opportunity to learn how to present a better case, not play the victim card or be utter delusional in thinking Sturgeon did well. If she had given that interview a week before a 2nd referendum it could have been catastrophic.

 

You are deluded if you class that performance from Neil as 'an interview'.It was an interrogation delivered in his classic boorish style.The FM (when she was allowed to answer!) rebutted his attacks on every single point and  moreover...pointed out his misrepresentation of The Growth Commission Report. No doubt a fulsome apology from Mr Neil is winging its way to Bute House as I type (aye right). Neil has form on this and received a 'ticking-off' from Ofcom when making similar claims pre-2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Yeah it's like the debates. People just watch it to confirm their beliefs. You can see that on here and on Twitter, most uber Nationalists will claim Neil was unfair, bring up his political leanings etc to try and excuse Sturgeon. Unionists will claim she got destroyed. And there's a small minority in the middle.

Regardless of his questioning technique (which he uses on everybody) all the issues brought up by Neil were absolutely fair and she struggled to answer most of them. They are all things that are going to be questioned when we get a 2nd referendum and we better have better answers ready if we are going to win. All the things she was asked about are pretty fundamental to the case of independence. Things like this should be used as an opportunity to learn how to present a better case, not play the victim card or be utter delusional in thinking Sturgeon did well. If she had given that interview a week before a 2nd referendum it could have been catastrophic.

 

I thought he was fair until nearly the end, in his usual brutal fashion. Then he threw four rapid fire accusations at her, including child murder, in a last minute rant giving her no time to respond. I haven't seen him do that to anyone before, seemed like he was worried he wouldn't get his twitter fans saying he destroyed her unless he went full throttle. Came over as personal rather than just his usual forensic style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 


Corbyn is a moron but that doesn’t prove anything considering the profile Israel have. Do you want him to just start slagging random countries to prove he’s not an anti-semite? Clearly anti-Zionist, but no proof of anti-semitism.

Before you go around referring to others as morons.....

Zionism is about the existence, or right to existence, of Israel as a state.

Corbyn is not remotely opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.

What he is opposed to is the behaviour of the state of Israel, in particular, its activities towards the Palestininas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, harry94 said:

On the Russia point, I think it's an oversimplification. He basically said we should go through the procedure and engage with the international framework, facilitating the legal requests made by Russia to analyse samples. It was nowhere near an extreme point of view IMO. If you have evidence someone has done something like that, you don't expedite the process and give them extra ammunition and accusations of the process being illegitimate etc.

The Egypt comments were stupid though. I think that and the commenting on the Facebook photo of the guys mural with all the big noses, star of david and illuminati symbols are the examples that are genuinely quite bad. He did in fairness apologise for the second and maybe has some plausible deniability that he didn't quite grasp what he was engaging with but with all the sensitivities about the issue, it's hard to phantom how he felt it was appropriate at the time to go peddling theories like that.

I think you’ve picked me up wrong (in part). The Russia point is irrelevant except insofar as showing the difference in attitude where anyone but Israel is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...