Quantcast
General Election 2019 - Page 144 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Bjornebye

General Election 2019

Who are you voting for?   

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?



Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Spy Bee said:

I don't know a single person who has ever been polled, so I am paying no attention to the polls. The Tories are shitting it and I am doing my level best to convince people to vote Labour. My dad told me I should vote Tory yesterday - I said we'd have to agree to disagree - I didn't even bother suggesting that he should vote Labour, as you need to pick your battles.

 

Labour are winning this election.

They’re not going to win mate, don’t kid yourself.

 

It’s a very long shot that they will be able to form a minority government, let alone actually win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Brownie said:

They’re not going to win mate, don’t kid yourself.

 

It’s a very long shot that they will be able to form a minority government, let alone actually win.

 

There's a long way to go in this yet.  Labour support won't fall, the other parties will have flakes who will quickly change vote should something tempt them in the coming week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Watching the "paper review" on Sky news and it is just propaganda. 

The articles they read are obviously more anti Labour (due to the newspapers being mainly anti Labour), including one written by a Tory M.P.

The 2 independent reviewers are Matthew Parris, former Tory MP and a deputy writer from the Sun. 

Obviously they dismiss the Guardian article as bluff and then "review" the Lord Finkelstein (Tory Lord) article slagging off Corbyn, which obviously they both agree with and then jump in with their own opinion of Corbyn/Labour.

 

Absolute joke and they will be on again in 30 minutes to do the same again.

 

The closing line from the Sun "journalist" was people don't believe Corbyn because he has made so many promises of good things that the people are too "bright" to believe they can be delivered. 

 

I would argue they are to "demoralised" to believe we can live in a fair and decent society.

 

They did promise a lot, which can backfire with voters that have been around a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So have the Tories, although they've massaged the numbers as far as increases in services go and are depending on borrowing even more money despite the national debt. They are also responsible for a decade of Austerity and a load of other shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

They did promise a lot, which can backfire with voters that have been around a bit longer.

Especially those who already have a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Especially those who already have a lot.

 

Those who think they are the only people who pay Tax and that the sum they pay is important to the structure of the country. Those who think that their Taxes are too high and go to people relying on social welfare and then spend it on fags, booze, mobiles and TV's. Notice how they don't whine about Taxes been spent in unnecessary areas and on vanity projects etc, things that don't benefit everyone but a certain section of society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

Those who think they are the only people who pay Tax and that the sum they pay is important to the structure of the country. Those who think that their Taxes are too high and go to people relying on social welfare and then spend it on fags, booze, mobiles and TV's. Notice how they don't whine about Taxes been spent in unnecessary areas and on vanity projects etc, things that don't benefit everyone but a certain section of society.

 

Yeah, that came through quite strongly looking back at the thread about Cameron changing our way of life. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, that came through quite strongly looking back at the thread about Cameron changing our way of life. 

 

10 years of Austerity for what? I get that people who are greedy and well off would stay loyal to the party they love, not something I'd like to do mind and I think they're self centred wankers void of much empathy. It's those who will be voting for them because they have crossed over from all walks of life despite claiming for years that they were left leaning or liberal who need a wake up call. Working class people as well as those better off, and for what, they believe the lies and want to go back a century and relive Britannia ruling the waves or some other glistening web they've been spun. For decades people have used credit to share in the middle/upper class wannabe brigade, that's going to come crashing down at some point and they'll realise that they are indeed responsible for voting against the safety nets of a fair social system they then want to rely upon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Especially those who already have a lot.


That's true, but they were not the target audience anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have a choice to try and change this. Anything else is just noise.
 

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/02/growing-up-poor-britains-breadline-kids-review-the-lives-stolen-by-poverty

 

Eight-year-old Courtney found her first visit to the food bank quite exciting over all, despite the disappointment of discovering that it didn’t dispense victuals in the same manner as a cashpoint does money. She, her mum and her brother walked the two and a half miles from the flat they have been living in since they fled domestic violence seven months ago, and two and a half miles back sharing the weight of the bags between them (“There is a bus, but if you had bus fare you wouldn’t be going to a food bank”). Her mother carried most of the load, but they all bore their share.

 

3000.jpg?width=605&quality=85&auto=forma

 

They live in Cambridge, the UK’s most unequal city, where a fifth of the population takes home just 2% of its total income. The family is trying to live on child benefit of £5 a day while they wait for their delayed first universal credit payment. They have maxed out their allowance of top-up fuel vouchers from the Trussell Trust, so as the temperature drops below freezing, Courtney empties 45p-worth of coppers out of the china swan on the window sill to see if it’s enough to put the heating on while they wait for Cash Converters to open the next day so a phone can be pawned. “Baby,” says her mother wearily. “There aren’t enough there.”

 

You would call Growing Up Poor: Britain’s Breadline Kids (Channel 4) Dickensian if the word didn’t carry connotations of picaresque charm and a notion that things would come right in the end.

In Sudbury, Suffolk, Danielle is trying to revise for her GCSEs in the temporary accommodation in which she, her sister and her mother, Jodi, have lived since the parents separated a year ago and neither could afford the family home alone. It is a bedsit – a single room (plus kitchen and bathroom) for the three of them, in which she works on her bed trying to concentrate in the oppressive surroundings. Her father (who has been hospitalised for suicidal depression – Jodi also has mental health problems and cannot work) and brother, Phoenix, live in a similar place nearby. Their savings are gone, so they rely on benefits, the local soup kitchen and the food bank. Danielle is perplexed as to why she finds herself crying all the time. “It just happens.” She starts self-harming and having suicidal thoughts and goes to a charity for help. Her GCSE results are poor, objectively speaking. In context, they are a triumph. She can see only the former.

 

3000.jpg?width=605&quality=85&auto=forma

 

In Morecambe, nine-year-old Rose’s family is struggling to cope with the emotional and financial aftermath of her older sister Sarah’s death from cancer. The funeral costs, despite fundraising, have crippled them and her mother, who stopped working when her daughter got her terminal diagnosis, is still clearly shellshocked and consumed by grief. “I’m not ready to accept it … I don’t know if I ever could, if I ever will be able to.”

 

The stories differ in detail, but the pattern is the same: it takes just one ordinary catastrophe – domestic violence, divorce, bereavement, a breakdown – to precipitate poverty. The poverty creates further tensions and problems as well as exacerbating any exisiting ones. (For example, Courtney’s family must uproot themselves from expensive Cambridge for cheaper Hull, disrupting the children’s lives and educations further.) And the state safety net that is supposed to catch them is a shamefully shabby thing, holed by delayed payments and petty, irrational rules and riddled with traps for the unwary. Charities dash madly from one ragged gap to another, desperately trying to patch with goodwill and individual initiatives (Rose looks forward to helping out on their visits to Thursday Food Club, where an entry fee allows you to choose items near expiry dates that would otherwise be thrown out by supermarkets) what should be firmly sutured and kept in good repair by government.

 

We do not need to rehearse the whys and wherefores of austerity again here. Dispatches provided some facts and figures amid the children’s stories: the 2,000 new food banks established in the UK over the past 10 years, the 27p left in every pound to people who work overtime while on universal credit, the one out of 10 bereaved families who have to borrow money to meet funeral costs, and so on. But this was a programme designed to give a voice to those suffering their real-life effects, and to bear unsentimentalised witness to them. You could wish that the people in charge were watching but – they know, don’t they? At some level, they must know. And still we have food banks opening in schools and communities clubbing together to make sure children don’t go hungry in the holidays. Because if you have no conscience, knowing makes no difference.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, M_B said:

I suspect Sasas was joking. Many have accused Chomsky of being an anti-semite himself, or at least a holocaust denier, including Stronts if I remember correctly. So in that respect it could backfire.

 

You definitely don't remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

You definitely don't remember correctly.

Yeah fair enough. You said he "was wrong to sign a petition in support of a Holocaust denier" which admittedly isn't the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, M_B said:

Yeah fair enough. You said he "was wrong to sign a petition in support of a Holocaust denier" which admittedly isn't the same thing.

That's Rachel Riley you were thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top story on the heil is an interview with corbyn where he apparently doesn't watch the queens speech on xmas day. He also wants to move homeless in to chequers. 

 

the comments section is alive with the right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Top story on the heil is an interview with corbyn where he apparently doesn't watch the queens speech on xmas day. He also wants to move homeless in to chequers. 

 

the comments section is alive with the right. 

 

I'm guessing If anyone says they don't watch the Queens Speech, down voted...probably by cunts who don't watch it themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get these fucking Tory cunts out.

 

Those dick-heads from Birmingham, in that video posted on here the other day, need their bollocks kicking up into their mouths. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Pistonbroke said:

 

I'm guessing If anyone says they don't watch the Queens Speech, down voted...probably by cunts who don't watch it themselves. 

No. It’s about a politician being caught in a lie.  Which is what he did, but it’s being spun about something else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

Get these fucking Tory cunts out.

 

Those dick-heads from Birmingham, in that video posted on here the other day, need their bollocks kicking up into their mouths. 

There should be an iq test before being allowed the vote. I keep hearing Johnson is a character , but unfortunately one from Dickens.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Last Match Report

  • Latest Posts

    • He's going to go out with all the grace and dignity of a man who's shat himself on the night bus.
    • Wonder what Paul Pogba thought when he checked the score on livescore in between playing fifa and having a chinese
    • Fucking hell, he really is a deluded knob head. 

        'It is not good enough' - what the managers said Manchester United manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, talking to BBC Match of the Day: "There are loads of thoughts going through my mind. At one point it felt like we were creating openings and didn't take them. Now, it's one of disappointment. We hold our hands up, it is not good enough.   "The players are giving everything, they have done absolutely fantastic so far this season but they know it wasn't good enough tonight.   "The boys they looked mentally tired towards the end, we didn't find that creativity. We can't feel sorry for ourselves. When you are at Man Utd you are privileged because you are playing for the best club in the world. Sometimes you go through periods like this and it is a test I am sure they are going to come through."
    • Financial cheats manchester city were found to have made inadmissible submissions to Uefa over financial fair play in 2014 and were reported for not making their bank statements available, the Guardian can reveal. City’s submissions for the 2012 and 2013 financial years were questioned in relation to £118.75m in sponsorships from companies in Abu Dhabi, the home state of the club’s owner, and their accounting methods over transfer fees and the formation of two new companies were rejected. Manchester City feel the heat over financial affairs – what’s at stake Read more Almost £60m was added to the club’s losses by the European game’s governing body as a result of findings relating to accounting methods, the Guardian’s investigation can reveal. The findings against City were made by consultants appointed by Uefa in spring 2014 to delve further into the accounts the club submitted. The Guardian can reveal Uefa concluded City had made losses totalling approximately €180m in 2012 and 2013, vastly exceeding the €45m FFP maximum deficit allowed, provided those losses were covered by an owner. Uefa’s first inquiry into City over FFP has been known about for six years. So too has the deal which City eventually and reluctantly agreed with Uefa to limit their transfer spending. But the detail of the process, revealed today by the Guardian, has never officially been made public. The Guardian understands that within Uefa there were people who believed the regulations should have been more strictly enforced in 2014 and one staff member working on FFP is said to have left shortly after the settlement was agreed. The exposure of these details has come as a second investigation into City’s FFP compliance, sparked by revelations in November 2018, is nearing completion. The Abu Dhabi sponsorships became bitterly contested issues in November 2018 when Der Spiegel published “leaked” internal City emails and documents which suggested the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, was largely funding the Etihad sponsorship deal himself, unknown to Uefa. The “adjudicatory chamber” of Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is understood to be hearing the charges made against the club this week. If its panel finds the charges proven it could ban City from the Champions League, the trophy the club has most coveted since the start of Mansour’s £1.3bn project and transformational 2016 appointment of Pep Guardiola as manager. City are certain to appeal against any adverse finding to the court of arbitration for sport. In 2014 European football’s governing body was led by the now Fifa president, Gianni Infantino, and leaks published in 2018 by Der Spiegel appear to show he was personally involved in the settlement.   The club risked severe sanctions for the scale of its deficit including possible exclusion from the Champions League, yet a controversial settlement was agreed in May 2014. City vehemently objected to the process and the conclusions, and were seriously threatening legal action against FFP, arguing that the break-even principle could be considered unlawful. The consultants reported to Uefa that City had not provided them with bank statements so that the payments, including from the sponsoring companies, could clearly be seen, the Guardian understands. Manchester City take the lead to face down Uefa over break-even rules Read more City did make available their online bank account, which went back 12 months to the spring of 2013, but that did not cover 2012 or most of the 2013 financial year, which together constituted the first accounting period of Uefa’s FFP regulations. City are understood to have replied that the paper bank statements were not accessible to the club’s management at the time the consultants came to Manchester. The club’s hierarchy suggested to Uefa that the consultants could have made further requests for statements before highlighting that they had not been provided. The consultants are also understood to have reported to Uefa that some multimillion-pound sponsorship contracts with Abu Dhabi companies had not been signed. City dismissed that as an issue, telling Uefa that they also had contracts with non-Abu Dhabi sponsors which had not been signed, and that it was clear the deals had been done because the sponsorships were being fulfilled. The FFP regulations, introduced in 2010-11, were aimed at dampening players’ wage inflation and encouraging European clubs not to make huge losses. Under FFP losses cannot be reduced by owners putting more millions in via excessive commercial partnerships with companies related to them. City were taken over by Sheikh Mansour of the Abu Dhabi ruling family in 2008 and he with his executives instantly transformed the club’s finances and ambitions.   City faced a severe challenge to comply with the €45m loss limit when the club’s spending was escalating dramatically, with the multiple signings of star players; City’s sponsorships with the Abu Dhabi entities were examined closely by the CFCB. In 2011 City’s sponsorship by the Abu Dhabi state airline Etihad was converted into a 10-year deal, to include the stadium, and by 2013, after City had won the Premier League for the first time, it is understood to have gone up to £67.5m a year. The deals with three other entities from Abu Dhabi are understood to have been £15m a year from the investment firm Aabar, £16.5m from the telecommunications giant Etisalat, and £19.75m from the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority. In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline. City have strenuously rejected the conclusion that Etihad or the other two companies are related to City under the rules, arguing Uefa needed to show Mansour had substantial influence over their management, not just that he was the chairman of the funds owning them. Uefa is understood to have asked specialist sponsorship consultants to consider whether the money being paid to City by the Abu Dhabi companies was “fair value”. The Etihad deal is thought not to have been considered too excessive.   In the ultimate settlement agreed with Uefa City committed “not to seek to improve” the value of two of the secondary sponsorships, which were not named, and Uefa is thought to have agreed not to press the argument that the companies are related. In relation to transfer fees the consultants added £31m to City’s deficit after rejecting allowances City had claimed for the cost of players signed before June 2010. The rules allowed a club to take off the wages of players signed before FFP was introduced but not the transfer fees. City are understood to have argued fiercely that despite Uefa issuing guidance that such annual accounting for transfer fees, known as amortisation, was not an allowance for FFP, the rules did not exclude it. A further £28m was put on to the club’s deficit by Uefa’s consultants regarding the formation in January 2013 of two companies, City Football Services and City Football Marketing. The companies were to provide resources including scouting, analysis and marketing to the group of clubs worldwide which Sheikh Mansour was intending to buy. City submitted that the club had in effect sold the companies, receiving approximately £11m for each, and that the companies had taken around £6m of staff costs off the club’s payroll. City argued strongly that this was a legitimate way of accounting for the companies but the CFCB’s consultants are understood to have concluded that it should not be allowed. Under a settlement with Uefa City undertook to repay €20m from the 2013-14 Champions League revenues, have a European squad limit of 21, constrain transfer spending, not increase their wage bill until 2016 and make a maximum €30m loss for 2014 and 2015. City’s chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, made clear publicly that he disagreed with Uefa and the settlement but argued that given the club’s success they would comply with the break-even rules after 2014. The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email. Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and the Abu Dhabi Tourism and Culture Authority did not respond to emailed questions from the Guardian about the sponsorship contracts. Etihad has previously stated that the City sponsorship is the airline’s “sole liability and responsibility,” and that it “continues to deliver important ongoing and accumulative returns on our investments”. Uefa declined to comment in response to any questions about the 2014 assessment and settlement, or the current proceedings. A spokesperson for City said: “The 2014 settlement agreement resolved all open matters between the parties and was based on comprehensive information disclosure. The settlement agreement contains confidentiality provisions that prevent Manchester City from commenting on both the agreement and the investigation that it settled. “It continues to be our position that we will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”   https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/22/manchester-city-financial-fair-play-breaches-2012-13-accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league
  • Latest Round Up

  • Popular Contributors

×