Andrew Neil Interviews

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 10:53 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:Yes, he said it earlier in the day and he tried to qualify it.

Difficult to understand?

Or just being your usual difficult self ?

I've made it extremely easy for you by including what he said in the above post, so please help me see what you see by quoting the bit where he says that UK intervention is, as you say he says, "the blame".

You're saying that Corbyn is saying it is entirely our fault, so please, show me where he says that.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sat May 27, 2017 10:59 am

claretandy wrote:"I never met the IRA" he said

However, he did readily agree that he met with Sinn Fein and that looks like leaders of Sinn Fein to me. So he was correct!

Quite a few met those chaps - UK Queen comes to mind.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Sat May 27, 2017 11:01 am

Blair had an appeal as leader that corbyn lacks, even though experts might scrutinise any flaws in policies, Blair was astute enough to come across as knowledgeable.
Unfortunately as in other countries, personality politics wins votes.We have poor turn outs regularly desite the country facing huge problems, the electorate are apathetic. The media bias doesnt help corbyn either.
Given that he looks uncomfortable and sounds hesitant in interviews, that in itself will counteract any value he has as a leader.
If he was going to have to answer questions about involvement in overseas conflicts, you would have thought he would respond forcefully and be articulate when discussing his views, he clearly was unable to manage it and that came across as weak. Not to say there is no validity in his opinion, but in a week when there has been the incident in manchester, it was one of the main areas where a politician needed to be precise and crystal clear, plainly he failed to do this.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Sat May 27, 2017 11:06 am

I watched the May interview, where she melted and managed to highlight the Tory cynical approach to everyday folk, in favour of the rich...so the rich can thrivthrive in a thriving economy...you know, the economy which keeps the 95% in our place. She was poor. Luckily no question about killing foxes for sport.

In the other hand, Corbyn (not my favourite Labour leader) kept his cool throughout and was reasoned and intelligent sounding, despite a huge barrage of q' s on terrorism.

No wonder the gap has all but closed. Care v Don't Care.
I vote for Caring Corbyn. Roll on June...May will be over!

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 11:42 am

I agree about May.It will damage her as she has tried to portray herself as assured,reliable etc.This was exposed by Neil. Howe've Corbyn who kept his cool ,talked rubbish answered questions his was not asked.I don't don't how anybody can be impressed by this

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat May 27, 2017 12:22 pm

I thought Corbyn answered the question on British Foreign Policy and Terrorism well. It was just that Neil didn't like the answer.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 12:24 pm

It certainly helps when someone posts the transcripts of exactly what was said..then those who were telling porkies or [let's be kind]... being economical with the truth, can be outed, without a doubt...a few apologies are due..

Plenty to comment on on this thread but it's Cup Final Day, and a big rugby day as as well, and I can't sit around all day joshing with you lads...just a couple of comments though..

I am sure that I saw our Prime Minister last night, commenting on Corbyn's earlier interview, in referring to the War on Terror and the Manchester Bomb, commenting as follows..

''he said it was our fault'..

He said no such thing..[check the transcript].
For her to lie so blatantly, when it is so easy to check what everyone said, shows she is rattled.

She should be after the way Andrew Neil steamrollered her earlier in the week,.. she did a shocking 30 minutes.

- if you haven't seen it, take a view, it's better than the Two Ronnies.

** thanks taio for the tip about the IFS..I've seen their televised comments, and I've read plenty about what they said, I try and read most of the Economics stuff, then I won't get caught out by sharp-eyed sleuths like you.

- looking forward no one can tell if the Labour tax and spending figures are correct..that will depend on many variable factors not least 'economic growth' - we don't know what that will be [the IFS get plenty of stuff wrong] one year, two years, five years ahead; just earlier this week the last quarterly growth figure was revised downwards from 0.3% to 0.2%.

One choice at the election is clear - one party is keen on investment and growing the economy, and one party is offering 5 more years of a previously very successful Austerity policy.

- final comment..if a Labour government can grow the economy with their expansionary policies, tax revenues can rise, public expenditure can rise more slowly and the budget deficits can steadily be reduced in this manner...it's not even complicated.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:01 pm

Your final comment is simply delusional - no way public spending will fall while reducing the deficit under Corbyn..it's not even complicated. I respect the view of those who want to see investment in public services though. Reliance on growth is interesting when so many believe that our economy is going to get hammered over the course of the next parliament because of brexit

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:11 pm

It's not just his final comment that's delusional. Most of them are

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:12 pm

I'd have asked him would he prefer to sit on the floor despite there being an empty seat.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:13 pm

"How much are you going to borrow?"
"None, we will issue bonds"
Ffs. Potentially another generation saddled with Labour's debt, so the current one can live it up a bit

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:19 pm

Damo wrote:"How much are you going to borrow?"
"None, we will issue bonds"
Ffs. Potentially another generation saddled with Labour's debt, so the current one can live it up a bit

Why are you so frightened of government debt?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:27 pm

9..another cracking one liner from dumbdamo...do you ever say anything interesting or type more than 20 words - sorry if my post is too complicated for you, I'll dumb it down next time....how are tips down the car wash these days?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:29 pm

8..your post tells me that you haven't got a clue..keep working on it.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:29 pm

IFS have agreed with Labours target debt figures

For those who don't realise government debt has increased under the Tory government

If anyone can name a government in living memory who has not issued government bonds to fund its economic policy (whether this be investment spend or other spend objectives) then feel free to list the details. If not then probably best to avoid commenting on a subject you have little or knowledge about.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:33 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:9..another cracking one liner from dumbdamo...do you ever say anything interesting or type more than 20 words - sorry if my post is too complicated for you, I'll dumb it down next time....how are tips down the car wash these days?

I clearly don't have as much free time as you. I'm usually too busy to spend hours and hours writing essays on football messageboards.
Perhaps that's why I'll be voting Tory and you will be voting corbyn

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:33 pm

Hampstead, perhaps you can explain how Labour won't increase public spending or what is wrong with the idea that our economy could be damaged by brexit. You've just done exactly what you've accused Damo of.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:35 pm

TVC15 wrote:IFS have agreed with Labours target debt figures

For those who don't realise government debt has increased under the Tory government

If anyone can name a government in living memory who has not issued government bonds to fund its economic policy (whether this be investment spend or other spend objectives) then feel free to list the details. If not then probably best to avoid commenting on a subject you have little or knowledge about.

I can't imagine that anyone doesn't realise that the national debt as risen under the Tories because it was always going to.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:35 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:9..another cracking one liner from dumbdamo...do you ever say anything interesting or type more than 20 words - sorry if my post is too complicated for you, I'll dumb it down next time....how are tips down the car wash these days?

By all means call people stupid, idiot, moron, etc. but at least back it up with an explanation of why you think that. And if all you can do is make up little names like "dumbdamo", "libtard", "turtlebrain" etc then you're also an idiot.

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:37 pm

taio wrote:Your final comment is simply delusional - no way public spending will fall while reducing the deficit under Corbyn..it's not even complicated. I respect the view of those who want to see investment in public services though. Reliance on growth is interesting when so many believe that our economy is going to get hammered over the course of the next parliament because of brexit

Spot on.Corbin is playing roulette with our economy.If it fails and for the reasons you have just given it most probe rely will.The effect on our way of life will be devestating with a far right political back lash.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:40 pm

taio wrote:I can't imagine that anyone doesn't realise that the national debt as risen under the Tories because it was always going to.

And it was always going to rise under Labour. The fact is it's just always going to rise over the long term regardless of who's in power and any politician telling you we can reduce and eventually get rid of it is a liar.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:43 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And it was always going to rise under Labour. The fact is it's just always going to rise over the long term regardless of who's in power and any politician telling you we can reduce and eventually get rid of it is a liar.

Yes, of course it was always going to rise under the last Labour government towards the end of their tenure

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:56 pm

Why is it acceptable for a wide range of private sector businesses to borrow money to 1] start their businesses 2] grow their businesses.... but not okay for the government/public sector to do the same?

- how do you think Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green and many others grew their businesses in the early days...do you think they ever borrowed any money?

How do most British people [millions of them] buy their own first home, and then move home several times in their lives ?
- they take out a mortgage from the bank, which involves borrowing tens of thousands of £££££s [often much more]...this is a good idea, many of them will tell you.

Borrowing then, should not be such a dirty word..sensible borrowing for investment is a must because if we wait for the private sector to drive the economy forward with it's own investment, Hell will freeze over first....they are always scared of the risk..ie. - will they get their money back..

Question to any private sector business person on here - if you see five more years of austerity policy coming at you with tax increases and [more] public spending cuts, both of which will crush the economy...how much investment in new machinery/tools/buildings/equipment/stock/vehicles, computer systems and new staff are you going to make going forward..?

- is the answer adjacent to zero?

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat May 27, 2017 1:59 pm

IanMcL wrote:However, he did readily agree that he met with Sinn Fein and that looks like leaders of Sinn Fein to me. So he was correct!

Quite a few met those chaps - UK Queen comes to mind.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:00 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Why is it acceptable for a wide range of private sector businesses to borrow money to 1] start their businesses 2] grow their businesses.... but not okay for the government/public sector to do the same?

- how do you think Branson, Alan Sugar and Philip Green and many others grew their businesses in the early days...do you think they ever borrowed any money?

How do most British people [millions of them] buy their own first home, and then move home several times in their lives ?
- they take out a mortgage from the bank, which involves borrowing tens of thousands of £££££s [often much more]...this is a good idea, many of them will tell you.

Borrowing then, should not be such a dirty word..sensible borrowing for investment is a must because if we wait for the private sector to drive the economy forward with it's own investment, Hell will freeze over first....they are always scared of the risk..ie. - will they get their money back..

Question to any private sector business person on here - if you see five more years of austerity policy coming at you with tax increases and [more] public spending cuts, both of which will crush the economy...how much investment in new machinery/tools/buildings/equipment/stock/vehicles, computer systems and new staff are you going to make going forward..?

- is the answer adjacent to zero?

You've only just suggested with a positive tone that Labour could reduce public spending and reduce the deficit.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:01 pm

69...I think he referred to me as 'delusional'..did you not see that?
You should have done you're never off here.

I think 'dumb' is a fair swap for delusional.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:04 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:69...I think he referred to me as 'delusional'..did you not see that?
You should have done you're never off here.

I think 'dumb' is a fair swap for delusional.

No, he referred to your comments as delusional. Stop being so emotionally attached to your own opinion that when someone criticises them you think they're criticising you.

jurek · Post by **jurek** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:06 pm

I thought Corbyn came over reasonably well in the Neil interview and certainly much better than
May has done a few days earlier.
He possibly should have answered the question re. Trident more directly.
It's not as if Neil wasn't aware that his views on Trident were different to those adapted
by the Labour Party probably mainly pushed through because of the Blairites.

Corbyn did say that a Labour government, if elected, would have a review of all
matters relating to the miltary/defence which would include our nuclear weapons.

Quite rightly too, one could argue. There is a serious debate still to be had
in relation to Trident.
Some of the accusations against Corbyn in relation to Trident and in particular
whether he would be willing to push the button are in my view nonsensical.
The argument re. use of nuclear deterrent don't stand up in my view.
If we were faced with a scenario where we had to press the button then it could be argued that
the deterrent had obviously failed to deter.

The main point for me on this issue is whether the country both needs or can afford to spend
20-30b on a nuclear deterrent?
Could we not use this money much more productively?

The threat to this country over the last 10 years or so hasn't been from external countries
but increasingly from within although I do agree that we cannot discount the fact that we have been
involved in many of the recent wars in the Middle and Far East and, as a consequence, become
an enemy and a target for extremists groups.

Following the Manchester horror I'm pretty sure a lot of folk would support
more resources being spent on internal security than say on Trident.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:07 pm

Is that a song?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:09 pm

taio wrote:I can't imagine that anyone doesn't realise that the national debt as risen under the Tories because it was always going to.

It was always going to ? Even though the Tories missed every single forecast debt target quarter after quarter ?

Actually you are right it was always going to - they were just making it up.

Of course the natural retort is always that Labour would have made it worse / or the mess that the Tory government inherited.
Nowt to do with the world wide crash - it was Labour building all those schools and dishing out money to the disabled....

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:15 pm

TVC15 wrote:It was always going to ? Even though the Tories missed every single forecast debt target quarter after quarter ?

Actually you are right it was always going to - they were just making it up.

Of course the natural retort is always that Labour would have made it worse / or the mess that the Tory government inherited.
Nowt to do with the world wide crash - it was Labour building all those schools and dishing out money to the disabled....

Disagree. It was mainly due to the global credit crunch.

As for the Tories, reducing the deficit to the extent they have (think by about two thirds) has been significant task. Perhaps those who cant see that wanted more cuts to public services.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:17 pm

IanMcL wrote:However, he did readily agree that he met with Sinn Fein and that looks like leaders of Sinn Fein to me. So he was correct!

Quite a few met those chaps - UK Queen comes to mind.

Timing and reasons for meeting were a bit different though. And mcguinness was IRA

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:20 pm

The National Debt...so much ignorance around this.

One school of thought says that a large National Debt is not really an important issue...AS LONG AS THE OWNERS OF THAT DEBT ARE BRITISH PEOPLE, BRITISH BANKS/INDUSTRIES AND BRITISH ENTITIES - the annual [often substantial] interest payments go to these groups.

- as such the Debt is internalised within the UK, and the UK'S wealth stays the same...no one outside the UK gets a penny.
There is a transfer of income/wealth within the UK from all citizens, to those who own the debt - so what, this happens every day, every year anyway.
The UK is no worse off.

- imagine a family with a well paid dad [£150,000 a year] a non-working wife and four teenage children.

All four children borrow £5000 each off the generous dad...he must ensure he gets it back from them.
- considerable borrowing has gone on, but the family is no worse off.
This is how some view our National Debt....hopefully the debt is internalised.

However...if we choose to let outsiders buy up our debt [French water companies, German Electricity companies], then we are asking for trouble as the interest payments on the debt then go abroad..

- this is a transfer of UK citizen's wealth to French and Germans....not a good move.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:23 pm

70...what?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:25 pm

19..

I have never used the terms 'libtard' or 'turtlebrain' anywhere, ever.

Show me where.

If you can't you owe me £100.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:25 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:19..

I have never used the terms 'libtard' or 'turtlebrain' anywhere, ever.

Show me where.

If you can't you owe me £100.

Do you think my post was only for you?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:30 pm

taio wrote:Disagree. It was mainly due to the global credit crunch.

As for the Tories, reducing the deficit to the extent they have (think by about two thirds) has been significant task. Perhaps those who cant see that wanted more cuts to public services.

Whoosh !

Reducing the deficit at the cost of the most vulnerable in society - super strategy.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:31 pm

69...'And if all you can do'

At a rough guess I'd say you were talking to me?

F*** me...IT, damo, and taio...

the Three Musketeers it ain't.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:33 pm

It must take a lot of energy to be as constantly angry as you seem to be

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:35 pm

TVC15 wrote:Whoosh !

Reducing the deficit at the cost of the most vulnerable in society - super strategy.

What you whoosing at? You were just criticising the Tories for not meeting their deficit targets, which would have led to even more cuts to public services

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:36 pm

I'm a happy lad but occasionally dismayed at the lying ignorant uninformed selfish Krapp that gets posted on here daily.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:43 pm

Whooshing at you disagreeing with my sarcastic comment about it being Labours fault rather than the world wide crash. Which as you know is the sh-ite that Tories have repeated for the last 9 years.

There is more than one way to reduce deficit targets than cutting public services - you do realise that don't you ?

Here's a radical suggestion - Rather than cut the benefits of people already on the poverty line....you could raise more tax from the richest in society.

Crazy I know.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:44 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:69...'And if all you can do'

At a rough guess I'd say you were talking to me?

F*** me...IT, damo, and taio... the Three Musketeers it ain't.

What a truly weak and petty reply from someone who hates it when their opinion is challenged. A demonstration of when someone can't defend their inconsistent and uninformed views. You're an angry fella.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:49 pm

TVC15 wrote:Whooshing at you disagreeing with my sarcastic comment about it being Labours fault rather than the world wide crash. Which as you know is the sh-ite that Tories have repeated for the last 9 years.

There is more than one way to reduce deficit targets than cutting public services - you do realise that don't you ?

Here's a radical suggestion - Rather than cut the benefits of people already on the poverty line....you could raise more tax from the richest in society.

Crazy I know.

If you think I hadn't realised and I wasn't being sarcastic in return then you need to whoosh at yourself whatever that means.

Raising more taxes has complexities, nuances and consequences, but I suppose when just saying it like you did it sounds simple and straightforward.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:52 pm

Based on the debate a few days ago I quickly realised "simple and straightforward" is probably best

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 2:58 pm

TVC15 wrote:Based on the debate a few days ago I quickly realised "simple and straightforward" is probably best

Is that when you had to resort to personal name calling. Let me be clear if you want to continue to do that I can be with you within the next half an hour if you're local and then you can do it to my face.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sat May 27, 2017 3:08 pm

Love the violent threats.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sat May 27, 2017 3:34 pm

taio wrote:Is that when you had to resort to personal name calling. Let me be clear if you want to continue to do that I can be with you within the next half an hour if you're local and then you can do it to my face.

Hilarious !
Yeh let's meet up - are you very big ?
If so - I'm just washing my hair

What a f-ucking pr-ick

taio · Post by **taio** » Sat May 27, 2017 3:45 pm

If you're going to call people a f*****g p***k on the internet you should be prepared to say it in person otherwise it makes you look silly. Fortunately there's not many keyboard warriors on here but, like you, those who are should be called out for it.

...I don't see any threat of violence which C&J chose to conclude.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sat May 27, 2017 3:48 pm

Called out for what? Having an argument?

Do you threaten people in real life when they call you names? If so,why? do you have anger issues?