General Election 12 December.

[Top Cats Hat]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

OFCOM have ruled that Channel 4 said the broadcaster was fair in the face of Tory threats..

That was always going to happen.

 

Channel Four fulfilled their regulatory requirement by inviting all major party leaders. They can’t force Bozo to attend therefore the responsibility for there being no Conservative representation during the debate rests squarely with the Conservative Party.

 

Complaining to OFCOM just makes them look stupid and reinforces the idea that they have a sense of entitlement above other sections of society.

[L00b]

2 hours ago, Mister M said:

(...)

 

Channel 4 setting an example to the cowardly and craven lickspittle BBC.

About that...have you seen the recent satirical cartoon in a Dutch newspaper (3rd or 4th most read) doing the rounds on social media?

 

'Brutal' isn't quite the word 

 

Then again, witnessing what's going on in the UK from afar (i.e. out of range of the campaigning-by-megaphone) is just like witnessing the Brexit debacle from afar: looking at the slow death of British democracy, one jaw-dropping moment after another.

Edited December 3, 2019 by L00b

[Mister Gee]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

About that...have you seen the recent satirical cartoon in a Dutch newspaper (3rd or 4th most read) doing the rounds on social media?

 

'Brutal' isn't quite the word 

 

Then again, witnessing what's going on in the UK from afar (i.e. out of range of the campaigning-by-megaphone) is just like witnessing the Brexit debacle from afar: looking at the slow death of British democracy, one jaw-dropping moment after another.

Easily found on Twitter for those that want a look. It’s strong stuff and makes me very sad at what we’ve become.

[Flanker7]

For those of you who don't read all the papers. This is taken from the Guardian daily briefing. Its clear that the more muted headlines from the left are in a different league to the rabid, rable rousing, hectoring of the right. By my scoring, on the headlines alone, its 4-3 to the right. With the Mail taking a day off. (sort of!)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/04/wednesday-briefing-labour-plan-is-money-in-your-pocket-mcdonnell

The papers

What Donald Trump said about the NHS, and whether you’d believe him, is the theme today. The Sun’s position seems to be that if the president said it, it must be true: “Trump thumps chump over NHS lies”. “I wouldn’t want NHS on silver platter” says the Express. “We have no interest in the NHS” is the Telegraph’s splash headline.

The Guardian reports that the Labour leader intends to press the president over his trade machinations. The paper’s headline is “Corbyn ups pressure over NHS as Trump rows back”. The Metro splashes with “Corbyn casts doubt on Trump’s NHS pledge” and adds in a subhead that Tories admit medicines from US drug companies could cost more after Brexit. “We’ll force tech firms to pay more, says PM” is the take in the Times on Boris Johnson’s pledge to have the Googles and the Facebooks of the world make a “fairer contribution”, which the paper says runs the risk of a rift with Trump who has threatened France with tariffs for doing the same.

The Mail sounds the alarm bell over a “Deadly gamble on our health” as an NHS report ties online betting in with social scourges including heavy drinking, obesity and chronic disease. “Labour to put £6,176 in your pocket” says the Mirror as it tots up the benefits of Corbyn’s plans to end “rip-off Britain”.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Flanker7
link added

[BoroB]

10 minutes ago, Flanker7 said:

For those of you who don't read all the papers. This is taken from the Guardian daily briefing. Its clear that the more muted headlines from the left are in a different league to the rabid, rable rousing, hectoring of the right. By my scoring, on the headlines alone, its 4-3 to the right. With the Mail taking a day off.

 

The papers

What Donald Trump said about the NHS, and whether you’d believe him, is the theme today. The Sun’s position seems to be that if the president said it, it must be true: “Trump thumps chump over NHS lies”. “I wouldn’t want NHS on silver platter” says the Express. “We have no interest in the NHS” is the Telegraph’s splash headline.

The Guardian reports that the Labour leader intends to press the president over his trade machinations. The paper’s headline is “Corbyn ups pressure over NHS as Trump rows back”. The Metro splashes with “Corbyn casts doubt on Trump’s NHS pledge” and adds in a subhead that Tories admit medicines from US drug companies could cost more after Brexit. “We’ll force tech firms to pay more, says PM” is the take in the Times on Boris Johnson’s pledge to have the Googles and the Facebooks of the world make a “fairer contribution”, which the paper says runs the risk of a rift with Trump who has threatened France with tariffs for doing the same.

The Mail sounds the alarm bell over a “Deadly gamble on our health” as an NHS report ties online betting in with social scourges including heavy drinking, obesity and chronic disease. “Labour to put £6,176 in your pocket” says the Mirror as it tots up the benefits of Corbyn’s plans to end “rip-off Britain”.

It'll be interesting to see how Labour are going to put £6,176 into peoples pocket.

 

 

[Car Boot]

17 hours ago, L00b said:

About that...have you seen the recent satirical cartoon in a Dutch newspaper (3rd or 4th most read) doing the rounds on social media?

 

'Brutal' isn't quite the word 

 

Then again, witnessing what's going on in the UK from afar (i.e. out of range of the campaigning-by-megaphone) is just like witnessing the Brexit debacle from afar: looking at the slow death of British democracy, one jaw-dropping moment after another.

Ah, the slow death of British democracy is because there is no respect for the  referendum result of June 2016, therefore there is no respect for democracy itself.

[alchresearch]

55 minutes ago, BoroB said:

It'll be interesting to see how Labour are going to put £6,176 into peoples pocket.

 

 

Ah, the £7000 a year better off.  I don't know where they got their figures from, but I can't see energy prices slashed in half.

 

They claim the free broadband will save people £364.  I have basic 20Mb Sky Broadband (BT Line) and that's only £19 a month. It goes up to £21 every so often but I play the "i'm going to cancel" game and it gets dropped.

 

The rest is all generic stuff - "expanding free childcare, cutting rail ticket prices, introducing free prescriptions and free school meals" would allegedly would save around £5,500 in total.

 

I don't use childcare

I don't need free prescriptions

I don't need free school meals

 

In the meantime, I'm sure their financial penalties on the fuel companies and the robbing of the VED pot to pay for trains will mean I pay more.

[taxman]

55 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Ah, the slow death of British democracy is because there is no respect for the  referendum result of June 2016, therefore there is no respect for democracy itself.

Why should there be any respect for it? If a majority of people voted to jump off a cliff would you follow them?

[ads36]

57 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

the slow death of British democracy is because there is no respect for the  referendum result of June 2016

3 and a half years later, we still don't know what the result *was* 

 

Norway ?

Canada ?

Switzerland ?

WTO without tariffs ?

WTO with tariffs ?

The perfect (impossible) vision, as presented by the leave campaign ?

 

There are a least 6 different versions of leave, 7 if we include the good old fashioned protest vote.

 

Which one do you want me to respect ?

[L00b]

2 hours ago, Car Boot said:

Ah, the slow death of British democracy is because there is no respect for the  referendum result of June 2016, therefore there is no respect for democracy itself.

You'd like to tell yourself that. And by all means keep telling yourself that, if it makes you sleep better.

 

But no. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 referendum, and all to do with the ongoing subversion of your multi-centennial monarchic parliamentary system by vested interests, apparently with the full and ongoing support of the decidedly-apathetic British public.

 

The very British democratic system, which you have consistently demonstrated in your posts (so much the usual loudhailing ones, as the much rarer considered ones), that you don't understand, nor respect.