General Election Is On

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:03 am

AndyClaret wrote:"Actress" from hard left propaganda film, I Daniel Blake allowed in Question Time audience.

I thought it was someone off Emmerdale when I saw her.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:18 am

Just a reminder of Labour's Brexit proposals:

Stay in the EU customs union
Closely aligned to the EU single market (but not in it)
No independent international trade deals
Possible to have an independent immigration policy (similar to Turkey)
Will need to pay (a reduced contribution) into the EU
Will need to accept EU rules/laws related to CU and SM

So, in effect, it will be a 'partial Brexit' where nothing much changes except we may have an independent immigration policy (which might be enough of a change to attract significant support).

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:19 am

To Paul Waine. Hi Paul, I can see you don't like the look of the Labour Party manifesto and I share some of your concerns about the effect on the economy of over-spending. But I also feel that the current crisis of the underfunding of public services, as well as climate change, demands extreme measures.

So what do you think should be done to put an end to the massive problems of social care, destitution of the poor, the need for food banks, care for the elderly etc etc. To me, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and those type of people just represent more of the same and I can't see how more of the same is acceptable at the present time. What do you think the solution should be?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:35 am

Erasmus wrote:To Paul Waine. Hi Paul, I can see you don't like the look of the Labour Party manifesto and I share some of your concerns about the effect on the economy of over-spending. But I also feel that the current crisis of the underfunding of public services, as well as climate change, demands extreme measures.

So what do you think should be done to put an end to the massive problems of social care, destitution of the poor, the need for food banks, care for the elderly etc etc. To me, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and those type of people just represent more of the same and I can't see how more of the same is acceptable at the present time. What do you think the solution should be?

Social care is a big problem but this has been building up for two decades under both the Tories and Labour. Pointing the finger at Johnson and Rees Mogg for those problems is ridiculous. Incidentally Rees Mogg is supportive of putting more public funding into social care.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:37 am

Johnson was dismal in the QT special. He’d do better if he had policies he actually believed in. I think he always intended to campaign on the left of his party’s economic flank - he’s campaigning to the left of Miliband’s 2015 platform in many respects - but he didn’t contend with having to campaign against a real Labour manifesto.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:27 am

Imagine my surprise that we haven't had a BBC fact check on the lie that Harold Wilson stayed neutral.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:32 am

AndyClaret wrote:Imagine my surprise that we haven't had a BBC fact check on the lie that Harold Wilson stayed neutral.

It was corrected immediately on the Program.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:38 am

Paul Waine wrote:and you want to play the "bad boy" - that's fine.

What is this "laughed in your face" stuff? Where has all this social media angst come from?

Are you at Watford today, Lancs?

Not today.

Away games are a rarity these days due to kids football commitments.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:02 pm

Erasmus wrote:To Paul Waine. Hi Paul, I can see you don't like the look of the Labour Party manifesto and I share some of your concerns about the effect on the economy of over-spending. But I also feel that the current crisis of the underfunding of public services, as well as climate change, demands extreme measures.

So what do you think should be done to put an end to the massive problems of social care, destitution of the poor, the need for food banks, care for the elderly etc etc. To me, Johnson, Rees-Mogg and those type of people just represent more of the same and I can't see how more of the same is acceptable at the present time. What do you think the solution should be?

Hi Erasmus, these are tough questions. I wish I had some simple answers. I don't.

I've just seen it's 12:00. I'm heading out to Watford in 30 mins.

Maybe I'll get back to you with some thoughts later this w/end.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:30 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:It was corrected immediately on the Program.

So was the 80k a year one but that didn't stop them.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:43 pm

AndyClaret wrote:So was the 80k a year one but that didn't stop them.

You'll have to remind me of the £80k one please and i'll give my opinion.

What I dont get is how Corbyn giving a clear position that he will remain neutral is even an issue but just getting an example wrong about when a politician took a similar stance really isnt what Fact Chack is all about.

Had Corbyn been using the Wilson example as evidence that there will be some financial benefit or it will achieve something specific that we would not gain if he didnt remain neutral then yes I think clearly highlighting the example being used as justification is factually incorrect would be the right thing to do but that was not the case at all

Its massively different to the claims Corbyn makes in his manifesto or the claims the Tory's are making around things like building houses which is what fact check is all about.

If you are having to focus on Corbyn's decision to remain neutral and a minor mistaken comment about Wilson (who whilst had a position did deliberately keep in the background to reduce its influence) then Corbyn is obviously doing pretty well.

Cameron was very clear about his position in the last referendum and that proved to be a disaster and didnt help the referendum process or Cameron's ability to implement it afterwards at all.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:51 pm

It's ridiculous that Corbyn would take a neutral position. I would expect any Govenrment to advise the public on what is best for the country on such an important matter. And that advice should be accompanied by new impact assessments given Labour has maligned the previous ones or lack of them being sufficiently in the public domain.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:54 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:You'll have to remind me of the £80k one please and i'll give my opinion.

What I dont get is how Corbyn giving a clear position that he will remain neutral is even an issue but just getting an example wrong about when a politician took a similar stance really isnt what Fact Chack is all about.

Had Corbyn been using the Wilson example as evidence that there will be some financial benefit or it will achieve something specific that we would not gain if he didnt remain neutral then yes I think clearly highlighting the example being used as justification is factually incorrect would be the right thing to do but that was not the case at all

Its massively different to the claims Corbyn makes in his manifesto or the claims the Tory's are making around things like building houses which is what fact check is all about.

If you are having to focus on Corbyn's decision to remain neutral and a minor mistaken comment about Wilson (who whilst had a position did deliberately keep in the background to reduce its influence) then Corbyn is obviously doing pretty well.

Cameron was very clear about his position in the last referendum and that proved to be a disaster and didnt help the referendum process or Cameron's ability to implement it afterwards at all.

The 80k one was the guy on question time the other night saying he wasn't in the top 5%, a big who har was made of it and BBC fact check sent out tweets about it. BTW it was the guy in the audience who mentioned Wilson, i've no beef with Corbyn on this.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:55 pm

If Corbyn had the courage of his convictions he would go and negotiate his deal, and then campaign for it in a referendum.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:59 pm

Well that hasn't worked over the last 3 years. The Tory's have suppressed, misled and lied about the impacts of their Brexit to sell their vision which has led to a complete divide and the gutter politics that have accompanied it.

The idea that the PMs role will be to ensure their are honest discussions and factual information presented on all sides fairly sounds anything but ridiculous. Other members of the Govt can campaign for their position and advise what they think is best but if there is one lesson to learn it is to try and quell the tribalism and Corbyn's position is a good step towards doing that

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:08 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Well that hasn't worked over the last 3 years. The Tory's have suppressed, misled and lied about the impacts of their Brexit to sell their vision which has led to a complete divide and the gutter politics that have accompanied it.

The idea that the PMs role will be to ensure their are honest discussions and factual information presented on all sides fairly sounds anything but ridiculous. Other members of the Govt can campaign for their position and advise what they think is best but if there is one lesson to learn it is to try and quell the tribalism and Corbyn's position is a good step towards doing that

Agree it hasn't worked at all. That is exactly why a Labour government should set the record straight and have a clear position and advice on what's in the country's best interests. Their response throughout has been totally ambiguous which is unacceptable on such an important matter and would be even more so if in government.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:10 pm

AndyClaret wrote:The 80k one was the guy on question time the other night saying he wasn't in the top 5%, a big who har was made of it and BBC fact check sent out tweets about it. BTW it was the guy in the audience who mentioned Wilson, i've no beef with Corbyn on this.

I thought thats what you meant and I didn't see the program so can only comment on what ive read so accept I may not be the best informed.

My understanding was that the bloke called out labour as liars in stating only the top 5% would be impacted by the tax changes using himself as an example because he will be taxed and he is nowhere near in the top 5% and said he's not in the top 50%.

Ive watched the clip and the Labour guy said he was in the top 5% but the audience member strongly disagreed and Fiona Bruce didnt know and didnt clear up the matter.

This then became a discussion on social media with different people from different sides arguing over the truth. FactCheck cleared up that the audience member was wrong and that he was in the top 5%

Again Ive only seen the clip and seen the disagreements and arguments on Twitter so feel free to correct me if Ive got something wrong but this seems exactly the kind of thing FactCheck needs to clarify

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:17 pm

taio wrote:Agree it hasn't worked at all. That is exactly why a Labour government should set the record straight and have a clear position and advice on what's in the country's best interests. Their response throughout has been totally ambiguous which is unacceptable on such an important matter and would be even more so if in government.

I can appreciate your point and agree on the their ambiguous position throughout the process being terrible (one they have rightly suffered from). I can however sympathise that as soon as Labour took any position it would have just been used by the right wing media and propaganda to deflect a way from the mess of the Tory's who needed to be accountable for the Brexi they started and they were elected to finish.

Happy to disagree on this as I can see your point but given whats happened in the last three years, how the media would use Corbyns position to disrupt the process and the need to have a really balanced and factual debate I really like Corbyn's stance (and thats not because I am more left wing as would have welcomed this from any side of the political spectrum)

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:23 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I can appreciate your point and agree on the their ambiguous position throughout the process being terrible (one they have rightly suffered from). I can however sympathise that as soon as Labour took any position it would have just been used by the right wing media and propaganda to deflect a way from the mess of the Tory's who needed to be accountable for the Brexi they started and they were elected to finish.

Happy to disagree on this as I can see your point but given whats happened in the last three years, how the media would use Corbyns position to disrupt the process and the need to have a really balanced and factual debate I really like Corbyn's stance (and thats not because I am more left wing as would have welcomed this from any side of the political spectrum)

Fair points. But I think had Labour taken an unequivocal position to hold a second referendum based on what we now know could have been a very good, open and transparent stance.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:24 pm

taio wrote:It's ridiculous that Corbyn would take a neutral position. I would expect any Govenrment to advise the public on what is best for the country on such an important matter. And that advice should be accompanied by new impact assessments given Labour has maligned the previous ones or lack of them being sufficiently in the public domain.

Backs leave - "We already had a deal to leave, why are we doing it again, his deal isn't 'proper Brexit"
Backs remains - "He'll sabotage his own deal for a remain win"
Remains neutral - "The government should tell us what's best"

Is there any stance he could take you would approve of?

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:25 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Backs leave - "We already had a deal to leave, why are we doing it again, his deal isn't 'proper Brexit"
Backs remains - "He'll sabotage his own deal for a remain win"
Remains neutral - "The government should tell us what's best"

Is there any stance he could take you would approve of?

Yes see above

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:31 pm

taio wrote:Fair points. But I think had Labour taken an unequivocal position to hold a second referendum based on what we now know could have been a very good, open and transparent stance.

Yep that is what I would have liked to have happened

Edit: Just to add in the last 12 months Id have liked to see Labour move to a more inclusive position to reach out to the moderate Tories and the Lib Dems and back a 2nd Ref with either a May or Johnson deal, a Corbyn negotiated deal and remain with them only taking No Deal off the ballot paper. That to me would have been inclusive and cross party and still think would be the best way to try and resolve

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:52 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I thought thats what you meant and I didn't see the program so can only comment on what ive read so accept I may not be the best informed.

My understanding was that the bloke called out labour as liars in stating only the top 5% would be impacted by the tax changes using himself as an example because he will be taxed and he is nowhere near in the top 5% and said he's not in the top 50%.

Ive watched the clip and the Labour guy said he was in the top 5% but the audience member strongly disagreed and Fiona Bruce didnt know and didnt clear up the matter.

This then became a discussion on social media with different people from different sides arguing over the truth. FactCheck cleared up that the audience member was wrong and that he was in the top 5%

Again Ive only seen the clip and seen the disagreements and arguments on Twitter so feel free to correct me if Ive got something wrong but this seems exactly the kind of thing FactCheck needs to clarify

He was kicking off saying he was not in the top 5%.
Unfortunately for him he is in the top 5% of earners.

If you earn 50k your in the top 10% of earners.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:58 pm

The main problem with Labours manifesto is that there are a lot of things against EU law.

The close relationship he wants means he cannot do most of that manifesto.

They are just lying to people.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:00 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:They are just lying to people.

Has a political party ever told the truth though?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:02 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:The main problem with Labours manifesto is that there are a lot of things against EU law.

The close relationship he wants means he cannot do most of that manifesto.

They are just lying to people.

You wanna enlighten us what these things are and provide your sources cos you have form for believing any old bullsh*t and posting it on here as fact

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:32 pm

People don't want free stuff Ouch.....

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:37 pm

Corbyn and co are worrying the electorate hence the Tory surge. A moderate labour party would win this election hands down but I think a new party would have to be formed as the momentum movement are so entrenched now in labour it cannot unfortunately be saved.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:48 pm

You cannot nationalise lots of companies. It’s not allowed.

You cannot have a regional investment bank, that’s not allowed.

Germany has a regional bank but it was created by the US and UK after WW2. So is exempt from EU law.

That’s why we cannot save British steel or Thomas Cook but Germany could save Condor, the German arm of TC.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:49 pm

AndyClaret wrote:People don't want free stuff Ouch.....

That cause they are not stupid and know they are going to have to pay for it.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:58 pm

Had an interesting morning knocking on doors, there are loads of voters who don’t know what to do.

Tory remainers, who think they are just going to vote Tory and hope they back track and remain.

Tory leave voters who think the Tory cannot get in and so are thinking vote Brexit Party.

Labour leave voters who just cannot decide what to do.

Labour core voters who cannot stand Corbyn nautical have no where else to go.

Honestly , I have never been door knocking and come across so many people who just don’t know what they are going to vote.

One remain voter today said he was going to vote brexit Party so the Tories have to get it done as it was affecting his business and he just want stability and it ended.

It’s a real strange election.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:04 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:You cannot nationalise lots of companies. It’s not allowed.

You cannot have a regional investment bank, that’s not allowed.

Germany has a regional bank but it was created by the US and UK after WW2. So is exempt from EU law.

That’s why we cannot save British steel or Thomas Cook but Germany could save Condor, the German arm of TC.

So come on provide the detail of Labours manifesto you are talking about and the EU rules that prevent it and the detail of Corbyns EU deal and what agreements within that deal will prevent Corbyn from enacting his manifesto.

Im guessing you've read this claim or someone has told you it and you are now repeating it without really understanding any of the details or mechanics behind it but you can prove m wrong

The right wing and left wing press are all over the other sides claims at the slightest whiff of it not being 100% true and ive not seen this attacked at all

Im not claiming you are wrong as I havent looked into all the detail of this but im presuming if you are gonna state this as fact you must really know your stuff on the subject so please show us the big problem with Corbyns manifesto "lies"

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:11 pm

You are only allowed to put in public money as they have state aid rules.
Some countries are allowed as they are developing countries and that can be approved.
As the second largest wealthy country we are not allowed to give state aid.

Which is why JLR were given money to move to Slovakia.
https://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/jaquar-slovakia.41hk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:18 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41392469" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:25 pm

In the EU, it’s impossible.
Close working relationship with EU, it’s impossible.

It’s even hard under a clean break Brexit under WTO.

They are promising things they know they cannot deliver just to get into power. They just hope people are too thick to check or research and find it cannot happen.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:30 pm

Can you provide one article or link since Labour released its manifesto attacking it for breaching EU laws. Ive seen loads of attacks by the right on his nationalisation plans around cost and benefit but nothing around EU law.

If you can provide a genuine critique of its failure against EU law then it gives a starting point for a debate. If not is just you trumpeting generisations

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 7:57 pm

Even the BBC article explains it.

There are people on here who would still argue the earth is flat and would not be convinced of anything different.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:05 pm

I dont doubt there are challenges and complexities to nationalisation but it is not just a one size fits all and its much more nuanced than you are making out.

You've stated Corbyns manifesto is undeliverable and a lie due to the breach of EU rules and all im asking is provide me one link where the manifesto is attacked for this reason.

Again the manifesto is being scrutinised line by line and attacked on anything that isnt fully supported so it must be easy for you to show me an example

If you cant it just shows you are as per usual posting stuff you dont fully understand and cannot back up

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:14 pm

So it will be blocked as it’s against state aid rules.

You can bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and ignore facts.

You are the kind of person that will believe Corbyn when he says the moon Is made from cheese and from now on it will be free.

Your beyond the help of reality.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:15 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:So it will be blocked as it’s against state aid rules.

You can bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and ignore facts.

You are the kind of person that will believe Corbyn when he says the moon Is made from cheese and from now on it will be free.

Your beyond the help of reality.

Coming from someone who is spending their spare time canvassing for Farage that is pretty special.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:26 pm

And here’s an article explaining everyone pension is in trouble.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/ ... nsion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:37 pm

[quote="TheFamilyCat"]Coming from someone who is spending their spare time canvassing for Farage that is pretty special.[/quote

Well maybe some of you should educate yourselves on what you can and cannot do as a member of the EU.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 8:51 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:...You are the kind of person that will believe Corbyn when he says the moon Is made from cheese and from now on it will be free...

We’ve been paying for the moon up until now??

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:12 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:So it will be blocked as it’s against state aid rules.

You can bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and ignore facts.

You are the kind of person that will believe Corbyn when he says the moon Is made from cheese and from now on it will be free.

Your beyond the help of reality.

Just one little link and you cant provide it - oh dear

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:32 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:Can you provide one article or link since Labour released its manifesto attacking it for breaching EU laws. Ive seen loads of attacks by the right on his nationalisation plans around cost and benefit but nothing around EU law.

If you can provide a genuine critique of its failure against EU law then it gives a starting point for a debate. If not is just you trumpeting generisations

Just a thought, DA, is everyone letting the "it's against EU rules" argument slide because we are leaving the EU?

EDIT:

Think about it (1): Boris Johnson's Conservatives are campaigning on "get Brexit done." What sort of argument would they be making if they said of JC/JMcD's Labour "but you can't do that if you stay in the EU....." Boris doesn't want to stay in the EU - as well as not wanting JC/JMcD to be in a position, outside EU, to take 10% stake in every mid-to-large size company.

Think about it (2): Jo Swinson's LibDems want to remain in the EU. What sort of argument would they be making if they said of JC/JMcD's Labour "but you can't do that if we stay in the EU....." Jo Swinson wants to stay in the EU. Does a "EU won't let us do that" argument sit well with wanting to remain?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:40 pm

Greenmile wrote:We’ve been paying for the moon up until now??

It’s the main reason I’m voting Labour, the moon tax is crippling.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:42 pm

Lowbankclaret wrote:And here’s an article explaining everyone pension is in trouble.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/ ... nsion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post #2781 - I mentioned impact of JC/JMcD rules on all defined contribution pensions - including the workers making contributions to NEST under the recently introduced pension contributions rules.

But, MPs and senior civil servants still get their pensions paid for by the taxpayers. "From the many - but only for the few" is a good way to describe MPs own pension arrangements.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:47 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Just a thought, DA, is everyone letting the "it's against EU rules" argument slide because we are leaving the EU?

I dont know but Lowbank was specifically talking about Corbyn's manifesto where we either remain or have a SM style deal.

Its Lowbank who stated Corbyn is lying and cannot impliment his manifesto and so I think its fair for me to ask to see some evidence especially as he has a habit of just repeating stuff he reads without any care about the facts.

Do you not agree that Corbyns manifesto has rightly been pulled apart and criticised for every detail and had he obviously put a pledge in he could not deliver it would be easy to find a public critique of it?

I am honestly not sure of where the claims stands but I searched SM and couldnt find anything so Im interested to see where Lowbank has got his view from so it can be discussed properly.

I dont think ive been unfair with my small request of substance but the fact Lowbank cant provide it just proves to me he's read or heard a bit of propaganda he likes the sound have and chucked it on here not expecting to have to justify it properly

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:51 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I dont know but Lowbank was specifically talking about Corbyn's manifesto where we either remain or have a SM style deal.

Its Lowbank who stated Corbyn is lying and cannot impliment his manifesto and so I think its fair for me to ask to see some evidence especially as he has a habit of just repeating stuff he reads without any care about the facts.

Do you not agree that Corbyns manifesto has rightly been pulled apart and criticised for every detail and had he obviously put a pledge in he could not deliver it would be easy to find a public critique of it?

I am honestly not sure of where the claims stands but I searched SM and couldnt find anything so Im interested to see where Lowbank has got his view from so it can be discussed properly.

I dont think ive been unfair with my small request of substance but the fact Lowbank cant provide it just proves to me he's read or heard a bit of propaganda he likes the sound have and chucked it on here not expecting to have to justify it properly

We are typing at the same time. Does my edit, above, provide reasons why neither BJ nor JS would make the argument against JC/JMcD by citing EU rules?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:51 pm

martin_p wrote:Didn’t see it, but from the reaction on here maybe the Tories in the audience were too embarrassed to speak!

Too embarrassed to ask a question where a factual answer may be needed from their clown.