Got to admit the leave campaign appears to have had it. They just cant cope with government/ financial bodies and any other one linked to the government spreading doom and gloom if we were to vote leave. The BBC are doing their "vote remain" bit this week. From a totally impartial point of view. Its all very one sided and I dont think the Leave bunch have really got their act together, mainly because that pregnant fish Boris seems to be leading it, and everyone knows he's a plonker.
I don't think Boris is a twit. I think he is a very intelligent person, and like many intelligent people, he is just eccentric. I think the only reason the leave campaign are doing worse than they should is because as you say, the BBC is largely mocking them. Almost every day on the way to work, when the news comes on on radio 2, there is some pro eu piece, with some attempt at reasoning and logic, and then said almost quickly at the end, they'll add 'the leave campaign dismissed the claims', but don't bother to talk about what exactly leave said.
Boris is a very, very intelligent person. He is also a very manipulative and unscrupulous one. The buffoon thing is a disguise. If you are interested, this interview is from the Treasury Commission has a level of clarity you can't get from the news. It's three hours long, but trust me it's worth it. http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...parliament-2015/eu-referendum-evidence-15-16/
Well, yesterday was interesting with the two programmes of interviews and debates. On LBC there was the Iain Duncan Smith v Alex Salmond debate and on Sky News there was David Cameron being interviewed by Faisal Islam (Sky News Political Editor) and then questions from the audience. I don't think that either programme will have helped the 17% of the population that are 'don't knows'. The LBC programme was a good old slanging match with, in my opinion, a slight win to IDS. Faisal Islam was a brilliant interviewer and really gave Cameron a hard time. Cameron, very professionally, stood his ground but in my opinion was not able to rebut some of the accusations. Most of these were about scare mongering with little to back it up and, of course, about his promise to reduce immigration to tens of thousands. Whereas the figures are actually a net 670,000. Cameron very cleverly changed his wording from the original 'promise' to calling it an 'ambition' (Faisal didn't pull him up on that ) and from 'tens of thousands' to 'less than one hundred thousand' - both of which made it sound less of a difference. The only thing that I heard Cameron say that he could have been pulled on by an opposing politician (Cameron had refused to do the interview unless he was on his own so no other politicians were allowed) was when he said that the high immigration figures were because nobody could have predicted the events that have caused them (political unrest around the world plus a high growth in our economy compared to the rest of Europe). An opposing politician would have jumped on that immediately and accused him of not being able to predict this but claiming to be able to predict all the scaremongering statements he has made. That's a definite, inadvertent, one up for Cameron. After his grilling by Faisal the interview was open to the audience. The audience were equal parts 'In', 'Out' and 'Don't Knows'. This was a deliberate policy by Sky and accomplished by a specialist outside organisation whose brief was to also exclude rabid fanatics from either side. His experience with audiences stood him in good stead and he stood up well to everything that was thrown at him. I would have called it a win to him simply on being able to deflect the awkward questions whilst putting across his pre-prepared brief. Unfortunately for him one of the audience got the better of him. One of the girls in the audience asked him an awkward question and after he had been responding for quite some time she interrupted him and said "I'm interrupting you as you seem to have been doing it to everyone else and I’m an English literature student: I know waffling when I see it." I think that is going to be the main and lasting sound bite coming from the interview. My overall opinion of the interview is that very few people would have changed their minds. There may have been a very minor loss of 'In' voters and some definite swaying of 'Don't Knows' towards 'Out'. All mainly based on that girl's statement. Tonight's programme will be Michael Gove getting a grilling by Faisal and the audience. Unfortunately I won't be around for it.
And also a bit mischievous. Not that I trust him. Here's something I noticed being bandied about a few days ago - Name a contintent with a lower rate of growth than Europe - do you know the answer/can you guess it! Spoiler: Click for clueThere's only one continent with lower growth than Europe Spoiler: Click for answerAntartica
Well, the Stay campaign must be choking on their own propaganda as the master of scaremongering [Tony Blair] has lent his support to them............and everyone trusts him..........don't they??
Well, you say that, but if it wasn't for him and Mo Mowlem, I doubt that there would have been the 'Good Friday' agreement? Surely, that's worthy of some praise?
As I heard it, Mo Mowlem was behind it mostly, but as she died shortly afterwards he got the praise for letting most of the IRA off the hook. He then went on to cause all kinds of problems around the world and got out while the going was still relatively good, leaving that twit, gullible Gordon to take over, and take the flak. He's still wandering around causing problems in the middle east, chiming into things that dont really concern multimillionaires like him.
I don't think there's any doubt that Mo (bless her soul) did all the donkey work, but Tony was surely the driving force and would have approved any agreement? As for the IRA getting let off the hook, I agree, but lesser of the evils? Purely on a personal note, as a trade unionist (no, not a lefty), it was his legislation that restored the right to union recognition. As a reminder, the previous (?) Tory government brought in legislation that meant that companies could de-recognise the unions, no matter how many employees were members.
Never been in a job where unions were an issue, so obviously see it from a different point of view. To me unions just give us the chaos of the 70s. or maybe the kind of thing that tends to go in France most of the time.
Unions always get a bad press. If you were to say that unions (some) had too much power, then I'd have to agree, especially in the 70's. But from my day to day experiences, including being a steward, I think they do a pretty good job. I'm sure employers would like to see the back of them, so that they could impose anything they like. It could be argued that unions have helped raise the living standards of millions of people in this country, which is nice
She was possibly the only decent politician in my lifetime. She did most of the work, despite having to constantly fight her own corner within her party. As I remember, she was effectively pushed aside just as the negotiations were about done, leaving Tony b'Liar to take all the credit. As Armandii says, since then he's caused all sorts of trouble in the world. Remember when the last Iraq war was about to start? The justification was the 45 minute WMD lie. They tried and tried to make that stick, and when they finally realised they couldn't, it mysteriously changed to a war of liberation. Yet more lies. It was about lining pockets. Senior figures in the US government, that bliar was working for, owned major stakes in the companies put in to look after the oil infrastructure. And what's happened in Iraq since that Nobel peace prize nominee Tony b'Liar meddled? That's right. It's imploded. It is now pretty much in the hands of one of the most sadistic regimes ever. The power vacuum he helped create has led to the rise of a global jihad movement centred in Iraq but now occupying Syria and other countries, and with a global reach.
