News0 min ago
Media Plonkers......
40 Answers
So the PM is on sky news talking about the migration issue, taking questions....what does the first plonker ask about? yep you guessed it, the 9 minute gathering for a slice of birthday cake! If I was his editor I'd fire him. You get a chance to ask the PM a question on the issue of the day and peace it up against the wall!
Answers
You are correct Tora, but will his editor fire him, no because it sells newspapers. This PM has has more issues to deal with than anyone since the last world war. He is doing a good job and i hope he stays firm and continues to govern as the man for the moment,
19:16 Thu 14th Apr 2022
A manifesto is a pledge to do things to accomplish if the party is fortunate to win the election. The Conservatives never succeeded on the immigration pledge because their hands were tied. It was a lie because they knew their hands were tied and significant reductions would not be possible, but they said it anyway.
To answer your points Gromit
//That clearly hasn’t worked because the problem hasn’t got any better.//
And that in part is because the civil servants wont action what Patel wants. In some cases they have actively gone against her. The other problem is the HRA that now we have let the EU and we have a massive Tory majority should be amended. That is not Patel to do that though is it?
//- We should scrap the failing UK Border Force.//
I agree.
//- Replace it with a Professional naval police.//
Agree, providing the powers are given to them.
//- Take responsibility for immigration off the failing Patel.
- Replace her with one of the ex-services MPs.//
And you honestly think they would get past the left wing civil service who have their own agenda not the one of the Government (of any colour).
//- More surveillance of the French end to stop the boats before they sail.//
Well yes, but even you must know we are limited on that. We cannot actively monitor the French soil, which is why we pay the French to do it. But they dont.
Unless you are suggesting we put troops on the beaches of Northern France?
//That clearly hasn’t worked because the problem hasn’t got any better.//
And that in part is because the civil servants wont action what Patel wants. In some cases they have actively gone against her. The other problem is the HRA that now we have let the EU and we have a massive Tory majority should be amended. That is not Patel to do that though is it?
//- We should scrap the failing UK Border Force.//
I agree.
//- Replace it with a Professional naval police.//
Agree, providing the powers are given to them.
//- Take responsibility for immigration off the failing Patel.
- Replace her with one of the ex-services MPs.//
And you honestly think they would get past the left wing civil service who have their own agenda not the one of the Government (of any colour).
//- More surveillance of the French end to stop the boats before they sail.//
Well yes, but even you must know we are limited on that. We cannot actively monitor the French soil, which is why we pay the French to do it. But they dont.
Unless you are suggesting we put troops on the beaches of Northern France?
In Cameron's 2010 “Contract between the Conservative Party and you” he wrote,
“If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. Control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.”
There is a difference between "will" and "shall" which express either an obligation or an intention depending on to whom or what it refers and it crops up in disputes as to the intended meanings in contracts.
"I, we (first person) … will (OBLIGATION) … shall (FUTURE INTENTION)
You, he, she, it, they, the Party (second or third person) … will (FUTURE INTENTION) … shall (OBLIGATION)" [emphasis added]
As Cameron used, "we will", that was an obligation.
If it was claimed the Labour Party would win the election, that was a future intention.
“If you elect a Conservative government on 6 May, we will:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. Control immigration, reducing it to the levels of the 1990s – meaning tens of thousands a year instead of the hundreds of thousands a year under Labour.”
There is a difference between "will" and "shall" which express either an obligation or an intention depending on to whom or what it refers and it crops up in disputes as to the intended meanings in contracts.
"I, we (first person) … will (OBLIGATION) … shall (FUTURE INTENTION)
You, he, she, it, they, the Party (second or third person) … will (FUTURE INTENTION) … shall (OBLIGATION)" [emphasis added]
As Cameron used, "we will", that was an obligation.
If it was claimed the Labour Party would win the election, that was a future intention.
gromit: "A manifesto is a pledge to do things to accomplish if the party is fortunate to win the election. The Conservatives never succeeded on the immigration pledge because their hands were tied. It was a lie because they knew their hands were tied and significant reductions would not be possible, but they said it anyway. " - well perhaps they had ideas to un"tie" their hands are you saying that no prospective government should pledge to do things that do not have entirely obvious paths to a solution? When Clement Atlee pledged his intention to set up the NHS it was hailed by many as impossible etc, if he had failed would he have been a "liar" in Gromitspeak? Think it through me old china.
You seem to be saying don’t believe Johnson because all he spouts is hot air and no commitment to deliver.
We should ignore the manifesto, the Queens’ Speech, the conference speeches, the autumn statements and press conferences and briefings, because everything that comes out of his mouth is an aspiration, a wish list rather than a proper plan with a promise to deliver.
We should ignore the manifesto, the Queens’ Speech, the conference speeches, the autumn statements and press conferences and briefings, because everything that comes out of his mouth is an aspiration, a wish list rather than a proper plan with a promise to deliver.
//if he had failed (NHS) would he have been a "liar" in Gromitspeak? Think it through me old china.//
well devalutation in 1967 Callaghan said we "have devalued 15% but that does not mean that the pound in your pocket has been devalued"
to howls of disbelief....
so you say the dear old fellow was telling the troof? - - righto!
well devalutation in 1967 Callaghan said we "have devalued 15% but that does not mean that the pound in your pocket has been devalued"
to howls of disbelief....
so you say the dear old fellow was telling the troof? - - righto!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.