Gonzo's Erection Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tobes said:
I'm no fan of Abbott and she ****ed up her numbers by what £100m? Which was unprofessional but hardly what it's being portrayed as.

The way this has been spun and wrung out by the Tory press is ****ing laughable, or at least it would be if people weren't daft enough to swallow it ffs. <doh>

The tax revenue their policies would generate is an estimated additional £2.7BN, she was £100m out on the Police numbers, so ****ing what? Is the policy of reversing some of the savage Tory cuts to Police numbers by taxing people copping for huge lumps of inheritance not a good thing? But that's all been lost, and the narrative "You can't trust Labour" has been wheeled out, and the entire policy has barely had a mention.

There's nearly 20,000 fewer Police officers in the UK since 2010, but don't worry you won't have to pay capital gains tax on your massive inheritance, so it's all gravy.

I can't believe people fall for this ****.
Click to expand...

I think it's because Abbott made a total fool of herself. Have you listened to her interview? I get the media has blown it up and theres hardly any critique of the tories unforunately.

However, she mentioned it was 25,000 officers for £300,000 over 4 years. Then said 10,000 officers for £80m over 4 years (which is around 2k a year before equipment). Then gets even more muddled and says 250,000 policemen at 64.3m in the first year, then 2250 policeman. It's an absolute car crash.

Even now corbyn says it will be 10,000 policeman at 300m over 4 years. Thats around £7.5k per annum before equipment. Even now that is ridiculous.
 
BobbyD said:
I think it's because Abbott made a total fool of herself. Have you listened to her interview? I get the media has blown it up and theres hardly any critique of the tories unforunately.

However, she mentioned it was 25,000 officers for £300,000 over 4 years. Then said 10,000 officers for £80m over 4 years (which is around 2k a year before equipment). Then gets even more muddled and says 250,000 policemen at 64.3m in the first year, then 2250 policeman. It's an absolute car crash.

Even now corbyn says it will be 10,000 policeman at 300m over 4 years. Thats around £7.5k per annum before equipment. Even now that is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It was a **** up, no argument - and I'm no fan of Abbott, but the fact she fluffed her numbers when faced by Ferrari shouldn't mean that the policy is derided as being undeliverable or not costed out, as it was.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lice-funding-gaffes-labour-numbers-make-sense
 
Tobes said:
It was a **** up, no argument - and I'm no fan of Abbott, but the fact she fluffed her numbers when faced by Ferrari shouldn't mean that the policy is derided as being undeliverable or not costed out, as it was.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lice-funding-gaffes-labour-numbers-make-sense
Click to expand...

Well i've just given a quick estimate of costings. Even the guardian are saying based upon the numbers she has quoted thats 800 million.

Even then i think those numbers are unrealistic unless most of the recruits come in the 4th year as each officer is on an average salary of 30k not including equipment, pensions, health etc etc.

that leaves 2 billion for arts welfare and schools.

I'm not against the policy but no way are those numbers going to stack up in my opinion.

Anyway, you can bet your dollar that if May had made those multiple gaffs all anti tory people would be all over it
 
Labour simply cannot afford these **** ups, if they get their message out there clearly and accurately they will turn heads as a lot of the policies make sense and will make people realise how the Tories are just a bunch of upper class ****ers who want to look after their mates.
 
Red Hadron Collider said:
She was on breakfast news this morning walking down the street with a carton of chips. ****ing vile charlatan <grr>
Click to expand...

What was Cameron at last Time?

Or ed milliband with the tombstone.

You can do little stunts and get away with it but any ing truly cringes loses the toffs.

The slobs and chavs vote blue anyway
 
It wasn't the fact that she mis spoke, it was the fact that she was unprepared and she nor her aides had costings to hand..you don't fire out a policy and not expect the first question to be: "what will that cost"

It looks amateur hour because it is. Set the Tories aside for the moment. It's a pointless comparison for anyone not True Blue because quite honestly you'd hesitate over Frank Spencer on the ballet if it's the alternative.

But...I would want a little bit more from the Labour party than just "we aren't the Tories"

The Labour leadership is a **** show, lazy minded bunch of **** wits at the moment..they can't be arsed putting out solid, evidence backed proposals because they know they aren't winning. Just as long as it's a bunch of soundbites to say "look we aren't mean"

You can promise anything if you know before hand you don't ever have to deliver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, luvgonzo and Garlic Klopp
DirtyFrank said:
It wasn't the fact that she mis spoke, it was the fact that she was unprepared and she nor her aides had costings to hand..you don't fire out a policy and not expect the first question to be: "what will that cost"

It looks amateur hour because it is. Set the Tories aside for the moment. It's a pointless comparison for anyone not True Blue because quite honestly you'd hesitate over Frank Spencer on the ballet if it's the alternative.

But...I would want a little bit more from the Labour party than just "we aren't the Tories"

The Labour leadership is a **** show, lazy minded bunch of **** wits at the moment..they can't be arsed putting out solid, evidence backed proposals because they know they aren't winning. Just as long as it's a bunch of soundbites to say "look we aren't mean"

You can promise anything if you know before hand you don't ever have to deliver.
Click to expand...

yup. if you are a senior shadow secretary with a large staff out on the election trail with key election pledges and perform so shabbily you are unelectable.

I agree they are a complete joke and the party needs to close it doors given its failed to get away from them.

IMO they would end up 3rd paty if the lib dems actually had enough candidates
 
Article in guardian is interesting.


London Estate agents offering 18k car, stamp duty subsidy of 150k and free sound system fit outs to try and shift properties in London.

Oh dear the rich bankers are not buying any more.... wonder why
 
DirtyFrank said:
It wasn't the fact that she mis spoke, it was the fact that she was unprepared and she nor her aides had costings to hand..you don't fire out a policy and not expect the first question to be: "what will that cost"

It looks amateur hour because it is. Set the Tories aside for the moment. It's a pointless comparison for anyone not True Blue because quite honestly you'd hesitate over Frank Spencer on the ballet if it's the alternative.

But...I would want a little bit more from the Labour party than just "we aren't the Tories"

The Labour leadership is a **** show, lazy minded bunch of **** wits at the moment..they can't be arsed putting out solid, evidence backed proposals because they know they aren't winning. Just as long as it's a bunch of soundbites to say "look we aren't mean"

You can promise anything if you know before hand you don't ever have to deliver.
Click to expand...
I agree, Labour are their own worst enemy with how they present themselves. There's very little time for them to get this right.
 
luvgonzo said:
No point in Labour giving extra bank holidays unless they stop big companies like ASDA from forcing their staff to work them.
Click to expand...

To be fair, i'm not sure full time staff are forced to work them.

I remember when i was a checkout boy it was normally the part-timers who worked them and anyone who wanted extra money as it was double pay. Mine was only a tiny tescos store though so dunno what its like in the big ones
 
BobbyD said:
To be fair, i'm not sure full time staff are forced to work them.

I remember when i was a checkout boy it was normally the part-timers who worked them and anyone who wanted extra money as it was double pay. Mine was only a tiny tescos store though so dunno what its like in the big ones
Click to expand...

Yeah they have to work it in the big stores, it's being proposed in my work. Yes it's more money but I won't have a choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back