999tigger

That includes a calm temperament.

Care to explain the last two points?

There will only be a hard Brexit if that is what the UK wants. I cna well seeing the UK asking for and the EU granting an extension. Hard Brexit would be utter chaos, because many people do not comprehend how complex the negotiations are. If you want chaos then go far hard Brexit.

Not quite. The cons are still forming a government and hey are still the largest party. Who said they wont be responsible in brexit? Do you want to pay the £50billion-£100 billion they are supposedly asking for? ---------- Post added 09-06-2017 at 14:04 ---------- Agree on all those points. Give JC credit at least he had a policy, even though it was offering £££ the country is unlikely to be able to afford. May went from respected to being found out. refusing to go on the TV debate showed her to be a coward and the Tory campaign had little substance except more of he same. It was dullsville. Austerity it is then.

No They are opposed and one of them wont be the government. The government negotiates . They will never agree because one side wants the opposite of the other.

Then why are you making such stupid statements? Why are you calling students militants? If anyone was offered £30,000 less debt they would take it including you. Why are you saying its a lie? Highly doubt it and you zero evidence to support that. He would have just increased taxes to pay for it. He was going big on tax evaders and crooked landlords, so I can see why you dont like him.

Why do you think he has won? The exit poll suggest the Cons will have the largest party? Dont be such a surrender monkey it aint over yet.

If the exit poll is correct then she played a blinder. Corbyn has done awesome, but then whod have thunk hed have offered billions to everyone. The student touch was very clever. I still think he would be a disaster as PM. Completely messes the country up over Brexit though (UK in a weaker position) and May is damaged.

I went for the 51-75 win for the Cons. Corbyn tbh (at least as far as the polls) has done very well in offering to spend spend spend, but less well on how he will pay. If he got in by some miracle (wary of polls), then its debt and recession ahoy for the nation imo.

If you havent seen the film Arrival from last year , then do so. Was definitely in my top 5. It has parallels to your op.

You can all have more by having a successful economy, which increases tax revenues, which can allow for increased public spending. Thats why lots of spending commitments are actually based on economic growth.

Corp tax rates have one down but actual tax yields have increased. You might want to think carefully how you mess around with them. In addition not being in the EU will eb a big disincentive for some companies so raising taxes will only be exacerbated by Brexit. ---------- Post added 05-06-2017 at 23:18 ---------- Most people are working . those aspiring for a decent living arent convinced by same old labour tax and spend policies. The IFS has pointed out his spending is way over what he can expect to get in taxes. he will take the economy by spending what we dont have. Some of us would like the economy to stay intact, its taken it long enough to recover as it is.

The Moor is quite busy and much healthier these days.

Online and retail are separate businesses. Normally online is cheaper. Disparity in pricing is normal because one does not have the retail stores to pay for, but they can also be employing a different strategy. The exchange rate weakness caused by the referendum result is a valid reason for price increases for products bought from abroad because the prices have increased.

If it riled you enough then you should have complained and got your money back. Giving up halfway through is a double waste of time. 100% sure id have gotten the money back. Better than ranting on SF.

Just go in with a good attitude. Listen and be co operative then am sure you will be fine. Certainly no reason at all to feel worthless and intimidated. As pointed out thats you doing it to yourself.

I thought she was a DM columnist? The sad thing a lot of people agree with her but cant see through her methods.

Thats a tiny amount of troops, no matter how much you try and big it up. there is no group of troops that would come in and do peacekeeper role for all Iraq and Afghanistan plus be able to enforce their will. never mind the others. You arent going to get nice agreements for oil because those who arent included will not like it. Your plans are unrealistic. ---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 23:13 ---------- Our government has very little to do with what is happening in any of these countries. We arent significant.

Which area are you talking about? No one of going to do it because it costs money and also the locals would agree to being policed. The Militias and terrorists are in the UN. I dont think Western troops are the problem and there arent that many left.

You have a different problem if Saddam is in power because you have a dictator who would have continued invading his neighbours and would have put paid to many western economies by controlling much of the worlds oil. I did make the point that Iraq was messed up by the failures of the west . I agree IS would not exist, not in Iraq anyway, but then we were also talking about intervention in Syria against IS and apparently that was a bad thing. More likely the global terrorist power would be AQ and imo they were more effective at terrorism than IS have been. We could have expected several more 9/11. As bad as the Manchester attack was it was only a one person portable bomb. The potential is there for more serious attacks which are pretty unstoppable i.e we havent found a way of dealing with cars and lorries. Btw thats my point things are worse for Iraqis there, but not for the west. Syria and Libya were always going to happen. Afghanistan they had no choice since 9/11 and Iraq wouldnt have happened if Saddam had stayed in Iraq.

You're the one who made the point. You dont answer any of the questions I ask. You just make these vague points about it being more stable, but having ISIS in control, Saddam invading and even more powerful or AQ forming its own country seems to slip by you. How convenient it is for your make believe world.

Go on then explain how it would be more stable to have AQ and ISIS as stable entities free to launch attacks. How many more 9/11 and 7/7 would be acceptable? Explain how its better to have saddam attacking and at war with his neighbours plus an oil crisis. You want to unimagine WW1 now? How far back would you like to go?

Except why dont they look at what was happening already and what was going to happen in each situation. Then you can compare like with like. It wasnt going to be all sunshine and stability as things were changing. Afghanistan - developed into major organised terrorist base from which AQ could train and launch attacks, similar to the way ISIS was at its peak.= Many more terrorist attacks on the west. Syria- Civil war was going to happen anyway. The West have only directly attacked ISIS with airpower. ISIS are now in retreat rather than an actual country. Failure to attack them could have led to the fall of Syria and or Iraq completely = Even more powerful enemy and many more thousands of terrorists. Iraq= where they made a true mess. Cant blame the UK because the plan wasnt there choice post Saddam, but with Saddam in place he would have been busy invading his neighbours, which isnt so bad, but stopping oil production would have sent the world economy into a nosedive, much worse than the 70's. Libya =Gadaffi was actually insane and dying. They were heading for civil war anyway. All that would have happened is a much bigger refugee crisis as people fled across the Med. So this idea that without intervention we would have had control and they would be stable countries is nonsense. Afghanistan would have been stable for AQ to grow and launch terror attacks from. Saddam would have launched his own attacks against his neighbours and the others were heading for civil war anyway. The people I feel really sorry for are the Iraqis and the very poor post Saddam plan which disbanded the army and then banned the previous regime from having any part, which is what turned them hostile. ---------- Post added 25-05-2017 at 18:46 ---------- Who is toppling Assad? He's won or rather the Russians have.

Go through the places and stop treating them as one. They are different.

Turned out much worse for whom? I'm glad Saddam has gone. He would be cauing a lot more trouble now if he hadnt been deposed. Imo there would also be a lot more people on the move. Whilst I'd hardly call any of them a success overall they did achieve limited objectives which affects the effectiveness of terrorism against the UK. Afghanistan- failed to wipe out the Taliban, but AQ were removed or have been largely made irrelevant now. If they had been left intact then we could have expected many more terrorist attacks. Are we forgetting 9//11 and 7/7? Islamist extremists wnat to destroy our way of life, they will attack because of who we are. Iraq? A mess but it removed Saddam who was destabilising for the region. Much worse for the people of Iran though and a monumental mess by the USA in not having a proper post conflict plan. Syria? No boots on the ground and not our fault Assad started killing his own people. Civil war was always coming. western intervention has been about stopping IS and if they hadnt intervened then IS would be much stronger these days instead of in retreat and losing ground. A stronger IS means even more refugees and more attacks. Uk intervention has been minimal and has been about ISIS. If wed intervened proper then wed have boots on the ground and removed Assad and ISIS. Libya? Gadaffi was unstable/ mad so they were heading towards civil war anyway. the intervention stopped an immediate massacre, but I think it was always destined to be the mess it is. Too many militias and weapons floating around. Which countries are the ones with the religious dictators you talk of? Libyans fleeing are just as much economic migrants