Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:01 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Why is there never an emoji for yawning when you need one!

We've used them all up after wading our way through your/Elizabeth's bullshit.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:03 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And is that the 2nd highest amount of EU aid?

Per pop it might be, or per capita

Guessing the site he read it off didn't know that either.

They are the highest per capita.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:15 pm

Yup, the Brexit websites spinning it like mad as usual.

I don't think the Luxembourg pop are going to suffer if we leave the EU really!

Bloody big banking sector there as well. Well poised to take advantage

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:26 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hahahahaha!

You need to look that up and read it properly!

What have I said that's factually incorrect? It's all in the EU's own website.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:47 pm

I read what Luxembourg said and was encouraged by it

Only needs one of 27 to say no going past 31 Oct and then we're out. Was hoping the wonderful French leader would be the one to say that but in my heart of hearts I know he is French so will not do so to keep his Franco/German satellite countries in place.

I think remainers should really contemplate what remaining in the EU actually means if they accomplish there goals! I can see the UK being very influential in EU affairs for decades to come, I mean when Cameron went for some crumbs of the table they really gave him a loaf didn't they!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:58 pm

Murger wrote:What have I said that's factually incorrect? It's all in the EU's own website.

JCB for Murger

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:06 pm

KateR wrote:I read what Luxembourg said and was encouraged by it

Only needs one of 27 to say no going past 31 Oct and then we're out. Was hoping the wonderful French leader would be the one to say that but in my heart of hearts I know he is French so will not do so to keep his Franco/German satellite countries in place.

I think remainers should really contemplate what remaining in the EU actually means if they accomplish there goals! I can see the UK being very influential in EU affairs for decades to come, I mean when Cameron went for some crumbs of the table they really gave him a loaf didn't they!

You mean one country has a veto to stop anything happening? What a good idea!

Do the UK not have one as well, one that would stop this EU Army, or more political integration, or whatever this weeks Brexit buzzword is?

This is what Luxembourg have said

"Uk wanted a last minute change to inside, but it was impossible because there wasn't the space and the time to set it up."

Again, the interpretation I'm reading is that the talks didn't go well, the UK is still wanting the unicorns you lot were promised in 2016 and rather than face the press (and the crowd), Johnson, who yesterday was compared to the Incredible hulk, turned out to be a lot less green and a lot more yellow and did a runner.

This deal isn't looking very likely is it?

And if you saw the three seperate links I gave you (all filmed live btw so no spin), you would have noticed that the Luxembourg PM was visibly frustrated at having to explain that its not his problem if the the UK can't provide detailed proposals and that they keep repeating the same words for the domestic audience back home.

Its pathetic.

And the likes of you lot let him get away with it.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:17 pm

This from the known hard Brexiteers, Nicolas Soames and John Simpson.

HunterST_BFC · Post by **HunterST_BFC** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:24 pm

Who would have thought it...

The Hulk scared of loud noises

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:33 pm

AndyClaret wrote:This from the known hard Brexiteers, Nicolas Soames and John Simpson.

Let it go petal

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:51 pm

Rainbow coalition going well....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:58 pm

AndyClaret wrote:Rainbow coalition going well....

The rebel alliance is only hanging around to stop a "No deal" Brexit and then we have a GE or a 2nd ref.

Lots of political posturing going on, and as it's not been reported very clearly by the various Brexity papers, worth mentioning that the Lib Dem policy is only relevant if they win, until then the aim is still a 2nd ref.

But Johnson and his bunch keep saying we are really close to a deal, and as it's Brexit it doesn't matter if there isn't any evidence for it, it's still regarded as "possible"

GE inevitable

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:39 pm

Impressive stuff today from The Incredible Hulk.

My mate is an avid comic book collector but even he missed the issue where Hulk got bullied, ran away and ducked off somewhere to cry.

It's like when they made the American version of "The Office" but in reverse.

On a serious point I actually agree with the Leave side about the Lib Dems, you can't just cancel Brexit without another referendum, even if you stick that in your manifesto and claim it as a mandate. I never thought I'd see the other extreme of why we need a second referendum but there it is.
Unless the People's Vote overturns the result of the first referendum then I think it would be undemocratic and unfair to just bin it as a bad idea, there's a workable Brexit in there somewhere.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:40 pm

Did you see Johnson today?
One might even go so far as to say he chickened out.
The big girl's blouse.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:48 pm

The Luxembourg PM's a legend

**** Johnson, the pussy. What does it say about how strong a PM he is when he can't even handle a few protesters

This is your Brexit leader, brexiteers. He ******* suits you.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:57 pm

"So, did you Hulk Smash it today then or what?"
"...or what."
"Don't be clever with me you f*cking chlorinated chicken. I've seen the news. You got bullied and ran off. Who's the f*cking big girl's blouse now!!??"

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:04 pm

Let’s be honest, embarrassing Johnson is a bit of an open goal, and given everything he’s said about the EU, the lies he’s told, one they’re more than willing to take.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:04 pm

Has Cummings got something against Johnson?

He’s making him look more ridiculous day by day.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:12 pm

Another content free interview from Johnson with Laura Keunsberg on the BBC despite her best efforts to glean some new information. It’s embarrassing.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:12 pm

Pretty poor show from Luxembourg , hugely unprofessional and belittling the whole process , which needs clarity and balance ,not a crowd of screeching tin foil remainiacs whipped into a frenzy by the gurning Bettel. Where did he think was ? On the back of a Mardi Gras float ?

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:14 pm

Cameron interview on ITV tonight is very good. Probably some of the toughest questions I have heard, especially the one about the rich getting away from austerity without a scratch. Kudos to Bradley.

I think Cameron is a very decent and competent man, who has had not one but two heartbreaking events when most of us have none (one family, one career).

The abiding sense I have though, whether it is about austerity or Brexit, is that his narrow experience and privileged upbringing meant he didn’t have a clue about ordinary people, what they want and what they need. That was his downfall - and his legacy of failure.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:16 pm

martin_p wrote:Another content free interview from Johnson with Laura Keunsberg on the BBC despite her best efforts to glean some new information. It’s embarrassing.

When will interviewers refuse to move on and push for an answer instead of trying twice and giving up.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:19 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:The abiding sense I have though, whether it is about austerity or Brexit, is that his narrow experience and privileged upbringing meant he didn’t have a clue about ordinary people, what they want and what they need. That was his downfall - and his legacy of failure.

But do other politicians such as JRM have any better understanding?

He too has had a privileged upbringing.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:19 pm

KateR wrote:I read what Luxembourg said and was encouraged by it

Only needs one of 27 to say no going past 31 Oct and then we're out. Was hoping the wonderful French leader would be the one to say that but in my heart of hearts I know he is French so will not do so to keep his Franco/German satellite countries in place.

I think remainers should really contemplate what remaining in the EU actually means if they accomplish there goals! I can see the UK being very influential in EU affairs for decades to come, I mean when Cameron went for some crumbs of the table they really gave him a loaf didn't they!

This is what Cameron went to Brussels to request, along with what was agreed:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... m-35622105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom." - it's right there in black and white. What Cameron failed to do while he was there was erode our in work benefits system for EU citizens (which would erode it generally for everyone). The Tories are not, and have never been for ordinary working people.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:43 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Cameron interview on ITV tonight is very good. Probably some of the toughest questions I have heard, especially the one about the rich getting away from austerity without a scratch. Kudos to Bradley.

I think Cameron is a very decent and competent man, who has had not one but two heartbreaking events when most of us have none (one family, one career).

The abiding sense I have though, whether it is about austerity or Brexit, is that his narrow experience and privileged upbringing meant he didn’t have a clue about ordinary people, what they want and what they need. That was his downfall - and his legacy of failure.

I remember reading this article when it came out five years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... h-leveller" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:50 pm

Spijed wrote:But do other politicians such as JRM have any better understanding?

He too has had a privileged upbringing.

Clearly not in JRM case. I am not making a party political point. For the record, I am not sure Corbyn has either.

To be fair to Johnson, he had a career for about 15 years before politics, and was dragged half way around the world as a child, living quite a lonely childhood but seeing a lot of different places. Whether he is a good PM remains to be seen, but he certainly has a reasonable understanding of the electorate compared to Cameron and Corbyn.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:52 pm

AndrewJB wrote:I remember reading this article when it came out five years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... h-leveller" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agree. I rest my case.

Swizzlestick · Post by **Swizzlestick** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:16 pm

Pathetic and spineless from Johnson today.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:31 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Clearly not in JRM case. I am not making a party political point. For the record, I am not sure Corbyn has either.

To be fair to Johnson, he had a career for about 15 years before politics, and was dragged half way around the world as a child, living quite a lonely childhood but seeing a lot of different places. Whether he is a good PM remains to be seen, but he certainly has a reasonable understanding of the electorate compared to Cameron and Corbyn.

This is the power of rightwing media propaganda. To bring us back to reality, let's have a quick guessing game - the answers being either Corbyn, or Johnson: Who claimed their quarter million pound salary from a newspaper was "chicken feed"? Who belonged to the infamous Bullingdon Club (cost of the uniform £3500)? Who does not have a car, and instead cycles or uses public transport? Who has one single house, and who has several? Who has had a season ticket at a Premier League club for many years? Who was privately, and who state educated? Who had rich, and who ordinary middle class parents?

There is no question as to who understands ordinary people better.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:43 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Whether he is a good PM remains to be seen...

Well, he's off to a cracking start.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:47 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Well, the only way an acceptable deal gets through is if 50+ Labour MPs back it, which is possible as they have been pretty useless at making their minds up, but yeah, still hope for a deal.

The article though is full of stuff to undermine yellowhammer, rather than accept the possibility that it is both correct and needs to be written.

But if it was "worst case scenario" (which it isn't, and its so easy to find the evidence that the authors don't think it is worst case scenario) it would still need to be written.

What worries me is that there is an "actual worst case scenario" in the files, and we haven't seen it yet, and that there isn't a "best case scenario" because its impossible to write as the effects of a "No Deal" will cause the disruption and shortages highlighted in the base report which is what Yellowhammer is.

It means nothing that he used to be a remainer btw, plenty of the more extreme members of the government used to be remainers!

Taking the point on board btw that there is a risk that this undermines the credibility of government departments if it proves to be wrong and that people will cover their arses at all times but it still needed writing and it still needed releasing to the public.

One of the main reasons it needed to be released is that the government has been ignoring the reality of the situation since 2017, and that is far more damaging to our institutions than a report on what would/might happen in the event of a "No Deal" Brexit.

Hi Lancs, as far as I know, Philip Aldrick is still a remainer - his final comments suggest he is not in favour of Brexit. However, that's not the point of his article. He's saying that Yellowhammer and BoE predictions have some critical flaws - and it's a track record of institutions publishing flawed documents that concerns him. As far as I can tell, he's not a brexiter feeling the need to discredit Yellowhammer, rather he's an economist pointing out the factual flaws.

Personally, I can't get too hung up on scenario labels, whether the authors call it "base case" or "worst case" is neither here nor there (they could even call it "best case" if they liked), it's all about what is done with those "cases" - and the identification and examination of the variables that can be addressed and testing how they impact on the "case."

There can't be an "actual worst case" - because "actual" would mean the scenario is no longer a prediction, but what has now actually happened. (No need for "worst" or "case" in this situation, just "actually how things turned out." "Actually happened" therefore equals the "reality."

And, that's what Philip Aldrick is addressing, institutions making predictions that have demonstrable flaws - and turn out not to be good models of the actual "reality" when the events unfolds.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:51 pm

aggi wrote:Yep, fair enough. The magistrates court wouldn't be saying we've "no problem" with this potential act of murder though which is what your original post said. That is the point.

Hi aggi, I don't recall being the first to reference a murder - I believe I was only referring to the act of prorogation - and the English High Court's view on Miller #2 with respect to prorogation.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:01 am

Paul Waine wrote:There can't be an "actual worst case" - because "actual" would mean the scenario is no longer a prediction, but what has now actually happened. (No need for "worst" or "case" in this situation, just "actually how things turned out." "Actually happened" therefore equals the "reality.".

Have you really typed that garbage above? You have added the word "actual" and then used the word you have added to be the basis for your argument against whether there is validity in a worst case (not actual worst case) scenario versus a base case scenario

Scenario Modelling is a standard practice across business and finance and Id have thought you'd have been a bit more well versed on it - that is unless you are just deliberately misrepresenting yourself and hoping people just let it go

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:07 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi aggi, I don't recall being the first to reference a murder - I believe I was only referring to the act of prorogation - and the English High Court's view on Miller #2 with respect to prorogation.

And they still didn’t say (or mean) ‘no problem’.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:10 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I expect our elected representatives to honour the manifesto pledges on which they were elected.

If they wont, then they should allow voters to replace them with elected representatives that will.

I'm old fashioned that way.

Good. You do support all MPs other than Tories supporting a bill to stop no deal then.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:15 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:Have you really typed that garbage above? You have added the word "actual" and then used the word you have added to be the basis for your argument against whether there is validity in a worst case (not actual worst case) scenario versus a base case scenario

Scenario Modelling is a standard practice across business and finance and Id have thought you'd have been a bit more well versed on it - that is unless you are just deliberately misrepresenting yourself and hoping people just let it go

The word ‘actual’ is in Lancasters post. But it’s clear to anyone that in the context of the conversation the word ‘actual’ applies to there being an actual scenario rather than actual worse case. Paul Waimea is very good at ignoring the context of a conversation to reach daft conclusions.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:16 am

AndrewJB wrote:This is the power of rightwing media propaganda. To bring us back to reality, let's have a quick guessing game - the answers being either Corbyn, or Johnson: Who claimed their quarter million pound salary from a newspaper was "chicken feed"? Who belonged to the infamous Bullingdon Club (cost of the uniform £3500)? Who does not have a car, and instead cycles or uses public transport? Who has one single house, and who has several? Who has had a season ticket at a Premier League club for many years? Who was privately, and who state educated? Who had rich, and who ordinary middle class parents?

There is no question as to who understands ordinary people better.

Except that I have never had a quarter of a million pound salary, have never belonged in a posh club, have only got one house, have a season ticket at a Premier League club, was semi-state educated, and had [what I presume you would call] middle class parents. (I drive my own car, I don't have one provided for me like Corbyn does. Though I accept that he needs that for security purposes.) And yet I think Corbyn doesn't understand me at all.

Corbyn wants to take money off me. Corbyn wants to take money off my employers, too, leaving them with less to spend on me. Corbyn wants to close the sort of school that I (and he) attended. Corbyn wants to throw my neighbours out of their houses because they only rent them and can't afford to or don't want to buy. (To be fair, Tories have that policy too,) Corbyn wants to negate my vote for Brexit. I don't think Corbyn, in spite of his "man of the people" upbringing, understands me at all.

Incidentally, Corbyn was brought up in a 17th century manor house with 7 bedrooms in Shropshire, and attended Castle House School (preparatory, fee paying) and Adams Grammar School in Shropshire. Which as you are presumably not aware, was a direct grant school, not part of the state system, but an independent fee paying school where (like QEGS until 1975) approx half the fees were paid by the parents and the other half by the state.

HieronymousBoschHobs · Post by **HieronymousBoschHobs** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 12:58 am

dsr wrote:...Corbyn wants to take money off my employers, too, leaving them with less to spend on me...

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:06 am

Yes, but Boris or something.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 6:11 am

Come on lads, dig deep.

Swizzlestick · Post by **Swizzlestick** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:20 am

If in doubt, bring up the war again.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:35 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:Have you really typed that garbage above? You have added the word "actual" and then used the word you have added to be the basis for your argument against whether there is validity in a worst case (not actual worst case) scenario versus a base case scenario

Scenario Modelling is a standard practice across business and finance and Id have thought you'd have been a bit more well versed on it - that is unless you are just deliberately misrepresenting yourself and hoping people just let it go

Good morning DA, my post is in response to another poster - I'm sure you can see that by reading the quote accompanying my post. "Actual worst case" was his phrase, not mine. And, yes, I've got several decades of experience in using scenario planning. You and I will both know that there is never an "actual" in scenario planning - in all my decades of being involved in planning, and advising on models - which is what my job is today - I've never come across any need for planning for events that have already happened. Putting it a little more simply, if it assist you, if it is "actual" and if it is "reality" it's no longer in the future and, therefore, and most obviously, planning and scenarios are not required.

I like your use of the word "garbage" - the "gees" in GIGO. Have a great day!

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:36 am

martin_p wrote:And they still didn’t say (or mean) ‘no problem’.

Hi martin, "no problem" and "no worries." Have a great day!

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:42 am

martin_p wrote:The word ‘actual’ is in Lancasters post. But it’s clear to anyone that in the context of the conversation the word ‘actual’ applies to there being an actual scenario rather than actual worse case. Paul Waimea is very good at ignoring the context of a conversation to reach daft conclusions.

Sorry, martin, I missed your little message when I responded to DA. Thanks for noticing that Lancs was the poster who used DA's "garbage" phrase. I'm interested, what is an "actual scenario?" - or has my post this morning provide enough explanation why this cannot be?

Again, have a great day!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:49 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, as far as I know, Philip Aldrick is still a remainer - his final comments suggest he is not in favour of Brexit. However, that's not the point of his article. He's saying that Yellowhammer and BoE predictions have some critical flaws - and it's a track record of institutions publishing flawed documents that concerns him. As far as I can tell, he's not a brexiter feeling the need to discredit Yellowhammer, rather he's an economist pointing out the factual flaws.

Personally, I can't get too hung up on scenario labels, whether the authors call it "base case" or "worst case" is neither here nor there (they could even call it "best case" if they liked), it's all about what is done with those "cases" - and the identification and examination of the variables that can be addressed and testing how they impact on the "case."

There can't be an "actual worst case" - because "actual" would mean the scenario is no longer a prediction, but what has now actually happened. (No need for "worst" or "case" in this situation, just "actually how things turned out." "Actually happened" therefore equals the "reality."

And, that's what Philip Aldrick is addressing, institutions making predictions that have demonstrable flaws - and turn out not to be good models of the actual "reality" when the events unfolds.

Again, and I think we are both passing each other with what we want to say in our tweets.

I would be absolutely astonished if there isn't a "Best case", "worst case" and "base case" scenario being wargamed (for want of a better word). They will all be little scenarios with added bits like CU membership, deal on border etc etc.

Whether we like it or not (or in most cases on here, refuse to acknowledge it!) if we leave on a "No Deal" then OVERNIGHT a lot of stuff will change. They have to be planned for and scenarios produced where the effects are analysed.

If the Government are not doing this, then we are in a world of **** on Nov 1st.

I understand the point you (and he) are making (I did think I'd acknowledged it in my previous post but was in a hurry) btw

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:57 am

The faux outrage by almost all the Brexiteers is hilarious on twitter this morning.

Snowflakes galore, and its defo triggered Andy.

Please lets all give him time to find the safe space he clearly needs.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:24 am

And the important bit about yesterday is being lost.

Would Johnson have missed a chance to talk about a deal if he had achieved a breakthrough?

No chance, so no breakthrough

Would the Luxembourg PM have said what he said if he'd received new proposals from the UK?

Again, no chance

Boris isn't interested in a deal sadly.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:33 am

dsr wrote:Except that I have never had a quarter of a million pound salary, have never belonged in a posh club, have only got one house, have a season ticket at a Premier League club, was semi-state educated, and had [what I presume you would call] middle class parents. (I drive my own car, I don't have one provided for me like Corbyn does. Though I accept that he needs that for security purposes.) And yet I think Corbyn doesn't understand me at all.

Corbyn wants to take money off me. Corbyn wants to take money off my employers, too, leaving them with less to spend on me. Corbyn wants to close the sort of school that I (and he) attended. Corbyn wants to throw my neighbours out of their houses because they only rent them and can't afford to or don't want to buy. (To be fair, Tories have that policy too,) Corbyn wants to negate my vote for Brexit. I don't think Corbyn, in spite of his "man of the people" upbringing, understands me at all.

Incidentally, Corbyn was brought up in a 17th century manor house with 7 bedrooms in Shropshire, and attended Castle House School (preparatory, fee paying) and Adams Grammar School in Shropshire. Which as you are presumably not aware, was a direct grant school, not part of the state system, but an independent fee paying school where (like QEGS until 1975) approx half the fees were paid by the parents and the other half by the state.

Rightwing media bingo. It’s not tax, it’s “taking my money” Corbyn wants to tax higher earners more. That is progressive. That is more sensible than trying to tax poorer people more. That is in the best interests of ordinary working people.

More rightwing bingo - closing schools. They want to end selection in schools, and hopefully get rid of private education altogether. Democratising education is good for ordinary working people, because opportunities become open to all. And this runs through a comparison of manifestos - Labour’s being far more in line with the common good rather than benefitting the rich.

I don’t know the details of Corbyn’s education, but know that Johnson’s was exclusively private. He probably spent his early years without meeting and ordinary working people whatsoever. If he had a real interest in them he wouldnt have joined the Tory Party.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:The faux outrage by almost all the Brexiteers is hilarious on twitter this morning.

Snowflakes galore, and its defo triggered Andy.

Please lets all give him time to find the safe space he clearly needs.

And it's you who sides with a foreign government every time my friend.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:40 am

Paul Waine wrote:Good morning DA, my post is in response to another poster - I'm sure you can see that by reading the quote accompanying my post. "Actual worst case" was his phrase, not mine. And, yes, I've got several decades of experience in using scenario planning. You and I will both know that there is never an "actual" in scenario planning - in all my decades of being involved in planning, and advising on models - which is what my job is today - I've never come across any need for planning for events that have already happened. Putting it a little more simply, if it assist you, if it is "actual" and if it is "reality" it's no longer in the future and, therefore, and most obviously, planning and scenarios are not required.

I like your use of the word "garbage" - the "gees" in GIGO. Have a great day!

Yes but you've (either deliberately or stupidly) misrepresented what the word actual was referring to. Its plain to see that the word actual was used as saying the thing being talked about actually exists. You manage to write enormously long winded posts and like to construct a detailed argument so although this kind of practice is completely expected from posters like DSR I wouldn't have thought you needed to misrepresent the meaning of a word to drive your argument.

If you honestly didn't understand what the phrasing meant in that sentence then fair enough but I had you down as someone with a little more intelligence even if you do hold and support somewhat dubious ideas