[Mild Rover]

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:51 am  

wotsupcas wrote:

Don't expect to hear anything from the left wing echo chamber on here. Never known such a myopic bunch. And don't forget only the conservatives tell lies... Corbyn and the rest of his ilk are as pure as driven snow.
Don't know why you bother Cronus... right wing all bad, left wing all good. Never mind that we'd be destitute if Corbyn actually got to implement his crackpot policies just like the poor sods in Venezuela.

wotsupcas wrote:

Please explain how I'm a snowflake. I'm not taking offence at anything or professing faux outrage. Just stated a couple of facts as I see it.

Sure, happy to help.

It is difficult to judge the tone of written words. However, I read your first post (cited second above), as indicating a contemptuous view of the ‘myopic bunch’ inhabiting the ‘echo chamber’, and the comment about Corbyn’s purity as being sarcastic. Your opinion (or fact as you see it, to use your charmingly post-truth era turn of phrase) that Corbyn’s policies are crackpot and use of the oven-ready Venezuela cliche, suggest a degree of emotional investment and perhaps offence or outrage, faux or otherwise.

Therefore, you come off as a bit of whiny snowflake to us thick-skinned progressive types.

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:30 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

Sure, happy to help.

It is difficult to judge the tone of written words. However, I read your first post (cited second above), as indicating a contemptuous view of the ‘myopic bunch’ inhabiting the ‘echo chamber’, and the comment about Corbyn’s purity as being sarcastic. Your opinion (or fact as you see it, to use your charmingly post-truth era turn of phrase) that Corbyn’s policies are crackpot and use of the oven-ready Venezuela cliche, suggest a degree of emotional investment and perhaps offence or outrage, faux or otherwise.

Therefore, you come off as a bit of whiny snowflake to us thick-skinned progressive types.

No offence or outrage here my friend. Just expressing my opinion just as everyone else is entitled to.
Love the use of the word progressive though. Very "on message"

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 8:58 am  

Interesting reading of the party leaders comments when they are "fact checked" and it seems that Corbyn is in fact the more "truthful" of the 2, with Boris still peddling the myth of 40 new hospitals.
£2.7 billion is set aside for the first 6 hospitals- to be built over the next 5 years and seed money of just £100 million for the other 34, which are promised within 10 years ??
On the basis that there would need to be the same amount of money for each hospital, there would need to be a staggering £15.3 billion for the remaining 34 hospitals and just a 5 year time frame to get these done - blatant lie or just badly thought out, you decide.

Johnson is gambling the house on getting the much sought after free trade deal with the EU and all inside 11 months - he will fail on both and we will then leave the EU with "no deal"

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:29 am  

The consolation is if/when Johnson wins, he's inheriting an even bigger mess than when he set out on his journey to enlightenment.

If he doesn't deliver a satisfactory Brexit, the right wing headbangers will never forgive him. If he does deliver Brexit, it'll likely be of the harder variety, which may set the country back decades. There will only be so many lies he can tell until people start calling for his head on a spike.

[Mild Rover]

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:05 am  

wotsupcas wrote:

No offence or outrage here my friend. Just expressing my opinion just as everyone else is entitled to.

Absolutely.

wotsupcas wrote:

Love the use of the word progressive though. Very "on message"

Those who find themselves ridiculous, sit down next to me.

They say that one flaw damns a virtuous man (or anybody else wherever they define themselves on the gender spectrum), and one virtue redeems a sinner. So i’ll say one positive thing about Johnson - he is self aware, and while he pretends to be something he isn’t, he does so in such a way that anybody who buys it can only blame themselves, imo. Bit of red-blooded victim blaming for you there. I think he wants us to be in on the joke, so i don’t think it truly counts as deceit.

It must be horrible trying to be impartial in the media in this climate. So while I might have shouted abuse at Nick Robinson, based around his time as President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, last night, he did okay, I thought. I do sometimes laugh at how aligned with my views C4 news is. We jokingly refer to it as the real news and now more or less regard the BBC political news as an adjunct of the Conservative Party media operation. When Standee points to their left-wing bias, maybe, overall, it shows they are doing their best. I suspect Kuessenberg would privately regard you, Cronus and Standee as wets... but even so.

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sat Dec 07, 2019 11:57 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Interesting reading of the party leaders comments when they are "fact checked" and it seems that Corbyn is in fact the more "truthful" of the 2, with Boris still peddling the myth of 40 new hospitals.
£2.7 billion is set aside for the first 6 hospitals- to be built over the next 5 years and seed money of just £100 million for the other 34, which are promised within 10 years ??
On the basis that there would need to be the same amount of money for each hospital, there would need to be a staggering £15.3 billion for the remaining 34 hospitals and just a 5 year time frame to get these done - blatant lie or just badly thought out, you decide.

Johnson is gambling the house on getting the much sought after free trade deal with the EU and all inside 11 months - he will fail on both and we will then leave the EU with "no deal"

I don't get Labour's obsession with this. Well, I do, they're just seeking to repeat the word 'lie'.

Of course the Tories can't just build 40 new hospitals immediately, and no-one is pledging that. They've always said the first 6 are to be built first, with seed money to plan the other 34. Those 34 can be planned over 5 years, after which - all being well - building can proceed almost immediately. 10 years to plan and build a hospital seems reasonable? Yes, it's a lot of money but it falls far short of Labour's £733 centillion to deliver baby unicorns, beer fountains and free money trees to every household by next week.

Look, we all know these things never run to schedule or budget, so it's likely things will never pan out exactly as pledged. But to keep calling it a 'lie' is disingenuous.

[Mild Rover]

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:19 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I don't get Labour's obsession with this. Well, I do, they're just seeking to repeat the word 'lie'.

Of course the Tories can't just build 40 new hospitals immediately, and no-one is pledging that. They've always said the first 6 are to be built first, with seed money to plan the other 34. Those 34 can be planned over 5 years, after which - all being well - building can proceed almost immediately. 10 years to plan and build a hospital seems reasonable? Yes, it's a lot of money but it falls far short of Labour's £733 centillion to deliver baby unicorns, beer fountains and free money trees to every household by next week.

Look, we all know these things never run to schedule or budget, so it's likely things will never pan out exactly as pledged. But to keep calling it a 'lie' is disingenuous.

The standard of political debate and discourse is abysmal and a national embarrassment, imo. People tend to blame the politicians, but not being one, I can largely blame the electorate and systemic failings - political, financial, legal, cultural.

I know how lucky I am to live in the UK compared to most other countries, while also I know things have been cack in the past here too. But we are making a spectacular mess of things. This election is just a fight to see who will oversee the next round of catastrophe. Will it be the Tommy Robinson-endorsed, ruthless, lying Bullingdon twat-clown of the withered soul, to whom the concept of integrity is literally a joke, or a knackered septuagenarian picked by accident by his own party, who’d quite like to go back to his allotment shed and read back issues of the Morning Star from the mid-1980s?

I desperately, forlornly hope that the next Prime Minister will be somebody massively ill-suited to the role, because the more likely alternative so appalling. Rule Britannia.

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:10 pm  

Cronus wrote:

I don't get Labour's obsession with this. Well, I do, they're just seeking to repeat the word 'lie'.

Of course the Tories can't just build 40 new hospitals immediately, and no-one is pledging that. They've always said the first 6 are to be built first, with seed money to plan the other 34. Those 34 can be planned over 5 years, after which - all being well - building can proceed almost immediately. 10 years to plan and build a hospital seems reasonable? Yes, it's a lot of money but it falls far short of Labour's £733 centillion to deliver baby unicorns, beer fountains and free money trees to every household by next week.

Look, we all know these things never run to schedule or budget, so it's likely things will never pan out exactly as pledged. But to keep calling it a 'lie' is disingenuous.

Aspirations are one thing and to promise X number of hospitals is great and eminently acceptable.
Where this becomes a LIE is, when an impossible time frame is repeated, day after day by, politician after politician (although it is mainly Johnson who likes to repeat these things.
Why on earth say these things ?
6 hospitals within 5 years would be decent but, there isn't a hope in hell of an additional 34 within the second 5 year term, unless of course, they are counting 30+ that are already built and look ok , which would go nicely with the 50,000 NEW nurses or, is that 30,000, something again that would have been a decent achievement without the spin and LYING.

The unicorns are real, I've seen the seed money and the horns + superglue

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:49 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Aspirations are one thing and to promise X number of hospitals is great and eminently acceptable.
Where this becomes a LIE is, when an impossible time frame is repeated, day after day by, politician after politician (although it is mainly Johnson who likes to repeat these things.
Why on earth say these things ?
6 hospitals within 5 years would be decent but, there isn't a hope in hell of an additional 34 within the second 5 year term, unless of course, they are counting 30+ that are already built and look ok

Why not? Cos you say so?

None of us can predict what could change or affect plans over the next decade, but in general 10 years to plan and build a hospital seems entirely reasonable. I agree it's an ambitious time frame to complete 34, but to call it a lie is incorrect.

which would go nicely with the 50,000 NEW nurses or, is that 30,000, something again that would have been a decent achievement without the spin and LYING.

I must have imagined the leader's debate the other night when Johnson very clearly explained the 50,000 would consist of retaining 19,000 who would otherwise be lost to attrition, while recruiting 31,000 new nurses (undergrad/postgrad, apprentices and from abroad). Indeed, it's been explained since the manifesto was released. I don't see any lies there. Any sensible business factors in attrition when planning resources.

Just because it's not "50,000 brand spanking new nurses" you call it a lie. I get it, the left are making the most of the supposed issue of 'trust', but at least make your accusations credible.

The unicorns are real, I've seen the seed money and the horns + superglue

I think you've been sniffing the glue and smoking the seed money.

Re: The BBC editing political clips ? : Sun Dec 08, 2019 8:09 pm  

The problem is he said 50,000 NEW nurses, not 31,000 new nurses which was correct.