Politics - Page 1642 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #16411  
Old 03.06.2019, 12:40 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

we really should of told Trump to bugger off by now, he is trying to put us in a position to be taken advantage of by a terrible trade deal for the sub standard US products.


meanwhile he slates Khan and gets backed by the sniffling Tory leadership contenders, they have no morals.



instead we are helping him.

Last edited by goodkarma84; 03.06.2019 at 12:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16412  
Old 04.06.2019, 08:17 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesterHayes View Post
Here you go then mate:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gover...get/2017-10-31

So that's between 150 and 180 million, a long way short of the 350 claimed.

Here's another one:

https://fullfact.org/europe/350-mill...hority-misuse/

or:

https://fullfact.org/europe/foreign-...ion-explained/

Last one:

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov....-MP-210416.pdf

Better?

Its a strange one really. The biggest number that all these reports can come up with amounts to about 267 million a week. Why wasn't that considered a big enough number? The lowest is 156 million, an enormous amount of money too?

My theory is that the Vote Leave people wanted to steer clear of anything that could be considered verifiable facts. Go with 267 million and all the talk would be about the money we get back and that could have led to all sorts of discussions about the fantastic concessions we've managed to ring out of the EU over the years. Go with 156 million and you've got the same problem. Go with the gross amount and you put Remain on the back foot (as happened) trying to justify our contributions. A mendacious lie that 350 million number definitely was but you've got to hand it to those people. No honor but they won. I just don't know how they justify it to themselves.
For my money, the most likely figure for EU contribution is a net figure of 8.1 billion or 156 million a week. Whats most interesting is that this number represents 1% of government spending in 2016. 1%. How come that narrative never got the airtime it deserved? Even if we take Vote Leaves clearly discredited number of 19 billion that is only 2%?! We spent 815 billion in 2016 so these are all simply enormous numbers but, it turns out our contribution to the EU budget is actually pretty small; we probably spent more on stationary!
Reply With Quote
  #16413  
Old 04.06.2019, 07:14 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
meanwhile he slates Khan and gets backed by the sniffling Tory leadership contenders, they have no morals.
ah bless poor Mr Khan writes a hate filled op-ed in the sunday newspapers then gets a welcome to London tweet from POTUS.

so Corbyn with all his officials comments on Trump and his public boycott of the state dinner was behind the scenes trying to get a 1 on 1 with Trump who said no so Corbyn then goes to the small rally in London to slate him.

so Change UK have now lost 5 of its 11 MP's and Anna Soubry is now in charge and the others are independents floating towards the Lib Dems.

according to Guido Fawkes BoJo already has the support of 80 MP's who have either backed him publically or will come out in support this week which would make it hard for him not to make it onto the members ballot.
Reply With Quote
  #16414  
Old 04.06.2019, 07:19 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesterHayes View Post
For my money, the most likely figure for EU contribution is a net figure of 8.1 billion or 156 million a week. Whats most interesting is that this number represents 1% of government spending in 2016. 1%. How come that narrative never got the airtime it deserved? Even if we take Vote Leaves clearly discredited number of 19 billion that is only 2%?! We spent 815 billion in 2016 so these are all simply enormous numbers but, it turns out our contribution to the EU budget is actually pretty small; we probably spent more on stationary!
maybe your onto something and the Remain side should have stuck to easy facts rather than will bogus predictions that are easily ignored as more project fear.

also does your net number account for the money that the EU controls and decides where in the UK it is allocated and spent rather than say our directly elected governments.
Reply With Quote
  #16415  
Old 05.06.2019, 02:34 AM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
ah bless poor Mr Khan writes a hate filled op-ed in the sunday newspapers then gets a welcome to London tweet from POTUS.

he used accurate information based on facts (Trump runs on fear and hate and is clearly a racist,) Trump called him a loser, very Presidential.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
maybe your onto something and the Remain side should have stuck to easy facts rather than will bogus predictions that are easily ignored as more project fear.

also does your net number account for the money that the EU controls and decides where in the UK it is allocated and spent rather than say our directly elected governments.



predictions are made on all manner of things and we dont know if the predictions are right yet as it hasnt happened.



but so fair it has been a costly mess that has done plenty of damage.
Reply With Quote
  #16416  
Old 05.06.2019, 08:48 AM
LesterHayes's Avatar
LesterHayes LesterHayes is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 21.08.2012
Posts: 3,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
also does your net number account for the money that the EU controls and decides where in the UK it is allocated and spent rather than say our directly elected governments.
Morning Lee. I'm beginning to doubt the merit of posting links to websites if you're not going to read them mate? Makes me wonder a little bit how you come to conclusions on all sorts of things if you don't bother to look up or read, you know, facts?

The ONS essentially stated that our contribution to the EU in 2016 was 18.9 billion. Strangely that's 363 million a week, so more than 'BoJo' et al were quoting? But that is our gross contribution. We never paid that, never even owed it because of the rebate that Thatcher negotiated. We got a 5 billion rebate dropping the bill to 13.9 billion or 267 million a week. We can go with that number if you like? Forget the 4.4 billion in EU credits to the public sector or the 5.6 billion if you take in private sector funding and we're still at 267 million a week and not 350 million which, as you can see, was never a number no matter what you want to go with? Why didn't Leave go with the 363 million? Because people want a nice round easy to remember number maybe?

13.9 billion was less than 2% of government expenditure for 2016. Incidentally we spent 120 billion on the NHS in 2016. So another missing conversation from the whole argument might have been whether we really think that an increase in spending of 11% would actually make that much difference anyway? And lets not even start on the wanton profligacy that is endemic in the NHS already.

In case you wondered, the ONS or Office for National Statistics is the UK's largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.

Presumably they're in hock with the global elite to produce Fake News as well yes?

So that 350 million number was a big fat lie. It's pretty much unarguable, except to people like you who clearly aren't swayed at all by independently produced statistical evidence because, well, because you obviously don't read it? Or if you do, don't believe it?

We pay an awful lot of money to the EU but we get an awful lot of it back one way or another. I think, in relation to the discussion about the validity of the 350 million claim, you split hairs when you worry about how much comes back and how which is a classic 'change the argument tactic' made famous by Leave. That 350 number was an attention grabbing headline to trick stupid and/or gullible people. And it worked

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
maybe your onto something and the Remain side should have stuck to easy facts rather than will bogus predictions that are easily ignored as more project fear.
Ah, Project Fear! There's no doubt that Leave, like the devil, had all the best lines and that was a corker. It conjures up all sorts of conspiracy theory based machinations doesn't it? And to a degree the predictions made by Remain have not come to pass in quite the cataclysmic way they were predicted. But lets not forget that those predictions did come from people like HM Treasury and the Bank of England rather than scribbled on a white board by Dominic *******s and based on bugger all. Again though, you should read the published facts of the situation rather than what you get on Fox News or something. I won't bother with links from respected independent sources though because, as we already know, you don't read them.

Lets also remember that many of the predictions made were both for post Brexit, and we have not left yet, and were often long term predictions not short term ones. George Osbourne famously said that Brexit would leave the average household £4300 worse off and that has not happened. But what most quoters forget or, more likely, leave off, is the last bit of his quote which was "by 2030".

Lets also not forget that after making those doomsday predictions both HM Treasury and the Bank of England then worked tirelessly to ensure those predictions did not happen and ,again, there's plenty on line for the casual reader to go find about it if they're suitably inclined to do so. Of course the average Leave Voter is not inclined to do so. They're inclined to believe their own paranoid and typically populist narrative that all their problems are someone else's fault.

Last edited by LesterHayes; 05.06.2019 at 12:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16417  
Old 05.06.2019, 06:02 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodkarma84 View Post
he used accurate information based on facts (Trump runs on fear and hate and is clearly a racist,) Trump called him a loser, very Presidential.
maybe Sadiq Khan should concentrate on cleaning up the party he represents who since we are talking facts seems to be clearly racists against a certain set of people and as some female members or now ex-members of there party or certain people in the media find out if you call them out you get streams of hate thrown at you by there supporters.

lets see Khan do an op-ed on Labour then he can move on to US politics and Trump called him a "Stone cold loser".

since we are onto Labour seems another Corbyn adviser made news at the weekend after the party fudged suspending him for conduct detrimental,must help to be the son of Lord Two Jags.
Reply With Quote
  #16418  
Old 05.06.2019, 07:45 PM
goodkarma84's Avatar
goodkarma84 goodkarma84 is offline
GOAT
 
Join Date: 15.09.2008
Posts: 27,926
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
maybe Sadiq Khan should concentrate on cleaning up the party he represents who since we are talking facts seems to be clearly racists against a certain set of people and as some female members or now ex-members of there party or certain people in the media find out if you call them out you get streams of hate thrown at you by there supporters.

lets see Khan do an op-ed on Labour then he can move on to US politics and Trump called him a "Stone cold loser".

since we are onto Labour seems another Corbyn adviser made news at the weekend after the party fudged suspending him for conduct detrimental,must help to be the son of Lord Two Jags.

ah the old you cant defend a point, so try to change the direction of the conversation.

again politics isnt a team sport for me, my team in any case wouldnt be Labour.
that party does seem to have issues but he isnt the leader and he doesnt have control over it. they should clean up there issues and remove offending members.



Trump had attacked Khan in the past and Trump was coming to his city plus Trump has issued harmful statements about the UK and has also repeated messaging from far right hate groups.



sorry how was you adding more of Trumps comment helpful?


and after all that Trump is still a racist, who uses hate to get power, has no sense of what is required from a person in his position and lies 99.9% of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #16419  
Old 05.06.2019, 08:09 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

so the streets of London are so dangerous even the Trump Blimp got attacked yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #16420  
Old 05.06.2019, 08:47 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post

according to Guido Fawkes BoJo already has the support of 80 MP's who have either backed him publically or will come out in support this week which would make it hard for him not to make it onto the members ballot.
I’m not so sure. I could easily see the ‘Not Boris’ camp ganging up to ensure it doesn’t happen. Right now there are too many candidates but as they whittle down many MP votes are likely to find their way towards a consensus Not Boris candidate.

I don’t think a public vote is always required is it? We didn’t have one last time as Leadsom quit and left May as the only candidate. But if they have 3-4 left and the MPs give a single candidate over 50% is that just declared that? I mean let’s say hypothetically there were 3 left and 95% of MPs wanted one of them, it would be bizarre to put it to a members vote between the 95% candidate and the 3% candidate and have a chance of someone winning that 3% of the parliamentary party support. Otherwise you might as well just ask members from the start.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 02:04 AM.