BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 12 Sep 16 - 03:31 AM

"In politics and economics, Black Wednesday is 16 September 1992, when the British Conservative government was forced to withdraw the pound sterling from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) after it was unable to keep the pound above its agreed lower limit in the ERM. George Soros, the most high-profile of the currency market speculators, made over £1 billion[1] in profit by short selling sterling."

All tbe rest of us paid the price - unit trust ISAs halved in value - at least one pension fund provider went to the wall.

But you must be right because of your well researched, carefully crafted slogan with the supporting empirical evidence clearly shown

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 07:14 PM

Stanron - 11 Sep 16 - 10:33 AM

You forget Stanron according to the "socialist" mantra - It is always someone else's fault - never their own

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 04:48 PM

I'm not sure that traders are in business to manipulate markets. My take on it is that traders are trading to make profits. Buy something, sell something and at the end of that you are a few currency units up. If you aren't what's the point of trading?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 03:52 PM

Bankers and traders are two different animals - bankers are in business to sell credit, traders are in business to manipulate markets, and if making short term gains is at the expense of damage to economies it is in their books, a price worth playing. And instability of markets yields the greatest profits.

Oh, I am not talking about libor fraud - I am talking about legitimate trading of commodities and currencies without any regulation around wider impact assessment.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 11:05 AM

From Amber Rudd this morning:

"I can't tell you which portion of which area of immigration we're actually going to drive down more than the other," she said. "Because we're going to be entering into a negotiation with the European Union."

""I think that work permits certainly has value. But as I said, we're not ruling anything out at the moment.""

Hmmm... so the negotiating position possibly includes free movement... or anything else for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 10:57 AM

""It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes."


Certainly the general population/oysters bear some of the blame for taking on loans they couldnt afford. But in the end it was the walrus-bankers who ate them.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stanron
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 10:33 AM

People who fool themselves do not always fool others. (And isn't that a two edged sword?)

"Could this be the end of Europe? who will benefit from that, Russia? "

There is a difference between Europe and the European Union. We leave an inefficient, corrupt and undemocratic political union, not the continent or the people.

"And commodity brokers, forex traders, etc who will be able to milk the resulting chaos and line their grubby pockets. Isn't there one particularly nasty grubby obnoxious commodity broker who is outspoken about not just exiting, but the breakup of the EU who would probably not hesitate to defecate on the 14 million people who were stupid enough to believe him if it proves to his advantage? "

(Pause to wipe the spittle from the screen)

If this hate for those in the money markets comes from the 2008 world wide crash it is misinformed. Trace it back. Banks went broke. Bankers around the world bought leveraged bad debt. Banks in America found they had lots of bad debt from failed mortgages and wanted to get out from under. Banks in America were forced to give mortgages to people with poor credit ratings. Politicians in America sought political kudos by making home ownership more available.

Every one blames bankers but in reality they were the victims caught in the middle. We all got in debt, mortgages, credit cards and loans etc. Why don't we blame ourselves? Nah, let's blame the bankers instead. Of course the politicians are squeaky clean.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 08:48 AM

And commodity brokers, forex traders, etc who will be able to milk the resulting chaos and line there grubby pockets. Isn't there one particularly nasty grubby obnoxious commodity broker who is outspoken about not just exiting, but the breakup of the EU who would probably not hesitate to defecate on the 14 million people who were stupid enough to believe him if it proves to his advantage?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 08:13 AM

Could this be the end of Europe? who will benefit from that, Russia?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 07:55 AM

Dream on guys!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 05:02 AM

Neither was the poll tax negotiable - but after the riots it was withdrawn. Neither was the 1933 Enabling act in Germany negotiable, but this changed after a world war.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 04:52 AM

"That is non negotiable."

Negotiable is exactly what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 03:29 AM

You (and some others) may think that is non negotiable, ake, but we will have to see. I would not bet on it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 16 - 01:58 AM

And again Greg yet another non-post.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 06:46 PM

and all that it entails

And what, precisely, does it entail???

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 06:22 PM

One thing and the most important thing that "Brexit" means, is an end to the "Free movement of labour" and all that it entails.

That is non negotiable.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 11:50 AM

Especially as it seems everything the leavers said was just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 11:44 AM

Thing is, we still don't know what Brexit actually means. The Brexiteers don't know themselves, and I'll bet there will be some unholy rows between them when we finally find out as they won't all be happy little leavers.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 09:48 AM

Ake, for that BS there is no RIGHT thread.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 06:10 AM

As individuals, we make choices to better our lives as and when our individual means allow us to do so, for example if we are on low pay we may live on tins of beans, but as our income improves, we might extend that to a sunday roast with all the trimmings. When GDP increases then we makes choices to use that as an opportunity to improve rahter than just sustain health services - bring new treatments on line which may otherwise be too expensive. Those who oppose this are probably those who wold prefer the health service to diminish or be fit for their own purposes to facilitate reduced taxation.

That is also the argument that justifies the basis that determines whether a state is a net contributor to the EU budget - in order to work towards improvements in lives of all Europeans. To oppose this means taking an 'only what I want and **** the rest attitude'. Ah, someone who is les astute may say - why are we not prioritising those in need in our own country. Well,, says the astute person - because those who are without in this country are so not because we are helping others, or because we are a poor country, but being without is due purely to domestic economic and social policy.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 03:26 AM

Sorry, wrong thread.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 03:23 AM

It seems that Mr Trump may be correct in his assessment of Mr Putin's leadership credentials, as the US have just announced that they are to share security and work with Russia to defeat ISIS.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 16 - 02:34 AM

To me, that last few posts are about presentation, rather than the underlying reality. I agree with Nigel to the extent that I don't think percentage of GDP is a particularly good way of deciding what your spend on the NHS should be. One reason is because if the GDP fell there should not be an automatic corresponding fall in the money going to the NHS. The one is a measure of how interested the world is in your product, the other a function of the population size and age distribution. I don't see an automatic link between those two. Indeed if the GDP fell but the NHS spending stayed constant then as a percentage of GDP we would appear to be spending more on the NHS even though in financial terms we were spending exactly the same.

On the other hand, if the country's GDP does rise so there is more money available to spend then it is certainly right to consider how much of that should go to the NHS, so as a broad brush I would expect a rising GDP to lead to a rising NHS spend, but not in any automatic fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 12:34 PM

Hell, just let'em die, Steve, let 'em die and reduce the surplus population. After all, its The American Way!!

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 12:03 PM

So you don't think that spending on health care is a high enough priority for us to maintain it in proportion to the growing wealth of the country?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 16 - 10:32 AM

In 2000, current spending on health care in the United Kingdom was 6.3 per cent of GDP, and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair committed his government to matching the average for health spending as a percentage of GDP in the 14 other countries of the European Union in 2000 (8.5 per cent) through increases in NHS spending.

Over the next few years spending on the NHS increased substantially, pushing total (public plus private) spending to 8.8 per cent of GDP by 2009. By then, however, the EU-14 spend (weighted for size of GDP and health spend, and minus the UK) had moved on to 10.1 per cent of GDP. Still, the gap between the UK and its European neighbours was closing.

Since then, however, the gap has started to widen (particularly against countries that weathered the global financial crisis better than the UK) and looks set to grow further. UK GDP is forecast to grow in real terms by around 15.2 per cent between 2014/15 and 2020/21. But on current plans UK public spending on the NHS will grow by much less: 5.2 per cent. This is equivalent to around £7 billion in real terms – increasing from £135 billion in 2014/15 to £142 billion in 2020/21. As a proportion of GDP it will fall to 6.6 per cent compared to 7.3 per cent in 2014/15. But, if spending kept pace with growth in the economy, by 2020/21 the UK NHS would be spending around £158 billion at today's prices – £16 billion more than planned.
Failing to increase the NHS budget in line with an increase in GDP is not reducing NHS funding. But that may be too simplistic a comment for some to understand that it reflects reality.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 10:15 AM

" The fact that immigration proved impossible to control while inside the EU I would have thought would have been obvious for reasons I have already given."

So you knew this, but Cameron didn't when he made the speech? So he's as much a bare-faced liar as his Bullingdon buddies. I can never understand why anyone would give these people and ounce of respect.


"Communism did though didn't it - rather spectacularly if I remember it."

Communism has never been practiced, what happened in the so-called communist countries was the establishment of totalitarian and brutal regimes. But then anyone who knows his Marx and Engels knows that, don't they?

It'll be interesting to see if the government finally bend over and let China do it's thing at Hinkley Point. Odd that so many yell on about taking control back whilst being happy to cede some of our own to one of the most brutal regimes on the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 10:02 AM

From the King's Fund, Jan 2016.
.
How does NHS spending compare with health spending internationally?

John Appleby
John Appleby
Chief Economist, Policy
20 January 2016
18 comments
In 2000, current spending on health care in the United Kingdom was 6.3 per cent of GDP, and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair committed his government to matching the average for health spending as a percentage of GDP in the 14 other countries of the European Union in 2000 (8.5 per cent) through increases in NHS spending.

Over the next few years spending on the NHS increased substantially, pushing total (public plus private) spending to 8.8 per cent of GDP by 2009. By then, however, the EU-14 spend (weighted for size of GDP and health spend, and minus the UK) had moved on to 10.1 per cent of GDP. Still, the gap between the UK and its European neighbours was closing.

Since then, however, the gap has started to widen (particularly against countries that weathered the global financial crisis better than the UK) and looks set to grow further. UK GDP is forecast to grow in real terms by around 15.2 per cent between 2014/15 and 2020/21. But on current plans UK public spending on the NHS will grow by much less: 5.2 per cent. This is equivalent to around £7 billion in real terms – increasing from £135 billion in 2014/15 to £142 billion in 2020/21. As a proportion of GDP it will fall to 6.6 per cent compared to 7.3 per cent in 2014/15. But, if spending kept pace with growth in the economy, by 2020/21 the UK NHS would be spending around £158 billion at today's prices – £16 billion more than planned.

Hey ho. What you get when you vote Tory. One thing you won't get is the PROMISED £350 million per week, promised by the brexiteers.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stanron
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 09:13 AM

Greg F. wrote: Sure as hell matters when funding cuts take money FROM it,tho - dunnit, T-zer?

'it' being the NHS I'd be interested to see specific, dated examples.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 09:11 AM

Teribus, the Labour Party is a basket case. Of course it is. I've never denied the serious internal problems. I will deny scurrilous and unwarranted attacks and lies, of course, such as the ones about "antisemitism," generally led by a right-wing press and the pro-Israeli regime lobby. As for the NHS, I can't remember ever having got into a big debate about it, frankly. Do try to not make things up.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 08:35 AM

Doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at it

Sure as hell matters when funding cuts take money FROM it,tho - dunnit, T-zer?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 08:15 AM

"It's about time you tried to honestly confront the wrongs of today"

Yes I think you should Shaw:

You are in complete denial that Labour have serious internal problems {By the way how many CLPs are still under suspension? - Can they hold meetings in Wallasey yet?}

You are in complete denial that the NHS is in trouble and has been for decades. Doesn't matter how much money gets thrown at it, it just seems to get worse while those responsible for reforms and administration just seem to get richer.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 06:30 AM

Stop diverting away from the issue. I have told you'd nauseam that I hold no candle for the New Labour scumbags (largely because they followed almost the exact same political path as your hero Thatcher - strange that you don't approve, really). The point you're too embarrassed to address is that the right in this country routinely use immigration as their vote-catching trump card. Racism and xenophobia dressed up in the obligatory politically-correct language of the day. It's about time you tried to honestly confront the wrongs of today instead of scurrying around constantly to find someone else who was just as bad or worse. In fact, it's very noticeable that that has become your modus operandi.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 05:36 AM

That's right Shaw, Labour promised more doctors and more nurses for the NHS in the term of their first Parliament. There was only one way they could do that - by "poaching" doctors and nurses from elsewhere, thereby reducing medical cover from elsewhere.

Pete St. John's song "Rare Ould Times" has the following verse:

"And I courted Peggy Dignam, as pretty as you please
A rogue and child of Mary, from the rebel Liberties
I lost her to a student chap, with skin as black as coal
When he took her off to Birmingham, she took away my soul"

Any idea what that was about?

When Maggie stopped offering free university places in the UK for Commonwealth Students, Sean MacBride offered free places to medical students from Ghana in Trinity College Dublin to embarrass Thatcher, the UK and the Tories. When these Students qualified they realised that their qualifications would allow them to practice medicine in the UK - every single one of them lifted and shifted to work in the UK - not one newly qualified doctor went back to provide medical cover back in Ghana.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 04:42 AM

Anyway, what mess? I'm going to see my Czech dentist Hannah next week, the finest dentist I've ever had. Until she and several other dentists from the EU founded their practice a few years ago we couldn't get on an NHS list within fifty miles of here. Think I'll tell her what a right bloody mess she's got the country into.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 04:34 AM

Yes it's electioneering, but you can still play the race card. Right-wing parties in this country routinely appeal to the basest instincts of the electorate by making a big issue out of immigration. We are being swamped, taken over, acquiring ghettoes and no-go areas, having wages driven down, having our jobs taken off us, allowing them to put pressure on housing and to come here to live on benefits, to sexually abuse our children, hide behind burkas and breeding terrorists in our midsts and any other pack of lies politicians can get away with short of actually calling immigrants wogs, Pakis or niggers out loud. There are votes in it, Teribus, millions of 'em. Puts bums in polling booths. Immigration bad-mouthing is why we're coming out of the EU.

And I include Gordon "British jobs for British workers" Brown. He and his merry New Labour mob were on approximately the same point of the political spectrum as Maggie.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 02:44 AM

"our" democratic system hasn't failed Jom - Communism did though didn't it - rather spectacularly if I remember it.

1000 up.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 16 - 01:54 AM

" you are telling a bare-faced lie in order to get yourself elected. It's called playing the race card"

No it is not Shaw it is called "electioneering" and every single candidate and every single party standing for election does it. The list of things promised by Blair and Brown in 1997 that they completely and utterly failed to deliver on would fill a book as thick as "War & Peace", the two greatest lies they told {according to your definition} related to education and the NHS. We have the mess we have related to immigration solely because of the policies they introduced {Blair even admitted it}.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 11:27 AM

"You can make whatever promise you like in good faith when you are in opposition and responsible for S.F.A."
Which underlines the failings of our "democratic" system.
Basically, thinks haven't changed since we got "democracy" - that would be sometime in the first few decades of the 19th century, wouldn't it???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 09:56 AM

Impossible to control for obvious reasons eh? In that case the promise was not made in good faith. If you say that you will control immigration when you know damn well that you can't you are telling a bare-faced lie in order to get yourself elected. It's called playing the race card. And the LibDems did not force any compromise on that stated promise. Even the Tories didn't blame them when the policy failed. They simply lied about it, saying that it had been an aspiration, not a "no ifs, no buts" promise. You are defending the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 08:58 AM

You can make whatever promise you like in good faith when you are in opposition and responsible for S.F.A. Very different game when you actually have to do the job and are then faced with real problems that require you to come up with real and practicable solutions.

It was a Coalition Government that came to power a few months later not a Conservative Government - I think that is a fairly well documented fact.

Stu I see that in his speech he did refer to the introduction of the immigration caps I mentioned in my post. The fact that immigration proved impossible to control while inside the EU I would have thought would have been obvious for reasons I have already given.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 07:55 AM

"Tell me Shaw who was Prime Minister in JANUARY 2010 "
He was leader of the Tory Party and in the position to make such promises for when they came into power, which they did a few months later
Jin Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: JHW
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 05:47 AM

'Virgin's stated policy to fill its trains'

The other day I found easily a seat where the display thingy said Available
But - Notices stuck thereabouts stated that even apparently available seats could be booked 'onshore' and you might have to leave

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: peregrina
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 05:37 AM

When did campaign pledges ever count--Once they did, but when did they stop being taken seriously?

Yup, keeping the campaign promise to hold the referendum will count as one of the rashest gestures of mega stupidity in recent history.

You have more consumer guarantees buying a hoover, or even a used car, than
voting for a political party or in a UK referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Stu
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 03:21 AM

Sorry Tezza, you;re dead wrong on this. In 2010 Cameron pledged to cut immigration to the "tens of thousands", "no ifs, no buts". He said it was a promise:

"But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping."

Full transcript here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigration-speech

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 16 - 02:44 AM

Cameron promised in JANUARY 2010

Tell me Shaw who was Prime Minister in JANUARY 2010 - certainly wasn't David Cameron was it.

David Cameron also promised a Referendum Vote on the UK's EU membership too prior to the General Election in May of 2010. That along with other items contained in the Conservative Party's Manifesto had to be abandoned as part of the price of forming the Coalition.

In forming the Coalition Government with the Liberal-Democrats agreements were made detailing "Coalition Policy" in the following areas:

1.1 Deficit
1.2 Spending
1.3 Tax
1.4 Banking
1.5 Immigration
1.6 Political reform
1.7 Pensions and welfare
1.8 Education
1.9 European Union
1.10 Civil liberties
1.11 Environment

On immigration, the shortest section of the agreement, it only stated that a cap on immigration should be set - thus ending Labour's open door uncontrolled immigration policy.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 12:24 PM

By the way, do carry on with the schoolyard comparisons with the other children who you claim are just as bad, which you seem to think lets the Tories off the hook. I hate to keep saying it, but it's no skin off my nose. I hold no candle for Blair and Brown and never did.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 12:20 PM

Cameron promised in JANUARY 2010 - before the coalition - to cut net immigration to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts. There would be a cap. No LibDem forced him to relinquish that pledge. Theresa May was responsible for carrying it out. It couldn't be done. They KNEW it couldn't be done. It was entirely a Tory election gambit, a deliberate lie, nothing to do with the LibDems, unmodified by the coalition arrangements. It's laughable that you are trying to divert the blame for the failure of the policy on to the coalition. Cameron and May are Tories to the core and did not change their spots just because a few Liberals were handed tokenistic roles.

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 11:45 AM

The 2010 General Election resulted in the UK being governed by a Coalition Government - YES or NO - simple enough question even for you Shaw.

Your earlier statement that:

"As for the immigration numbers, the Tories have had six years in which they have failed abysmally - ABYSMALLY - to address the promise they made."

Is incorrect. But as you seem fixated on governments that failed ABYSMALLY - shall we run through the things that Blair & Brown's Labour Government failed ABYSALLY at in the 13 years they had in office?

Subject: RE: BS: To Br/Exit Or Not To Br/Exit
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Sep 16 - 10:23 AM

It was a Tory prime minister and a Tory Home Secretary and there was no resistance from the LibDems to that promise, a long-standing, rock-solid Tory sentiment, being in the manifesto. We all know where the buck stops, except for you. And the £350 million per week was a lie and you know it. We don't have to wait until 2020 for that to be crystal clear. And we'll wait until kingdom come for Boris's points-system promise to come to fruition. Ain't gonna happen. It's on the poster behind him with an x in the box next to it. That means "Vote leave and you're voting for a points system." What the hell else was it supposed to mean? Now come along. I've admitted to the lies and scaremongering of the Remain side. Time for all you smug brexiteers to admit the same and confess that there was a massive democratic deficit surrounding the whole damn thing.