WiganWarriorsFans.com

Fawdoffshed wrote:

morley pie eater wrote:

Fawdoffshed wrote:It's very strange isn't it when a seemingly clever man can't see the difference between 318 and 262. If Wigan Warriors won (looking forward to that day) 30 to 28, wouldn't they get the two points for winning and the losing side nothing for losing? I've just seen a map of Britain on the normally left-wing BBC news page and most of it is blue. Strange then that the IRA etc. sympathiser Corbyn seems to think May should stand aside (or anyone else who might take over)in order for him to be Prime Minister. If I had three toffees and you had two, I've got one more than you, haven't I? Or am I missing something?

And if Wigan put out a full team in the cup and beat South Wales Ironmen 20-18, you'd be on here congratulating them?

Under our present circumstances, indeed I would!

Just remind me - didn't Corbyn field a full team also?

Actually he didn't but there's every chance he may do at the next election if that is in the next couple of years.

Fawdoffshed wrote:

morley pie eater wrote:

Fawdoffshed wrote:It's very strange isn't it when a seemingly clever man can't see the difference between 318 and 262. If Wigan Warriors won (looking forward to that day) 30 to 28, wouldn't they get the two points for winning and the losing side nothing for losing? I've just seen a map of Britain on the normally left-wing BBC news page and most of it is blue. Strange then that the IRA etc. sympathiser Corbyn seems to think May should stand aside (or anyone else who might take over)in order for him to be Prime Minister. If I had three toffees and you had two, I've got one more than you, haven't I? Or am I missing something?

And if Wigan put out a full team in the cup and beat South Wales Ironmen 20-18, you'd be on here congratulating them?

Under our present circumstances, indeed I would!

Just remind me - didn't Corbyn field a full team also?

My example was (clearly to most people, I think) illustrating the point that "a win is a win" may be true, but the circumstances around it may actually change one's perception.

Labour lost the election. The Tories got most seats but didn't win a majority, let alone an increased majority, which was the whole point of the exercise. Most people understand this - see the headlines.

General election 2017: Theresa May is a dead woman walking, says Osborne Evening Standard

Boris bids to be PM: Johnson team circles wounded Theresa May as she's forced to sacrifice key aides to keep her job as Tory leader Mail on Sunday

For you to claim a win and pretend all's well is disingenuous in the extreme.

[I thought I'd stick some big words in to see how they go down in the Primary School playground.]

Fawdoffshed wrote: My perception is this: Corbyn can't be trusted, even less so than most. Except his sidekicks McDonnell and Abbott, to name but two. Our country is full to bursting and his "keep the doors open" policy is utter bobbins. And that's just on immigration. I haven't the time to comment on all his other policies.

And most sensible people know it.

But you see you aren't being sensible when you say your perception is that he can't be trusted because his actions and statements over the years show he is far more trustworthy than any U turning Tory.

There is a video on Channel 4 of Corbyn interviews over the years:

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/v ... f=NEWSFEED

If you watch that and look at what he has said it is very consistent. You may not agree with his position on things but you cannot argue he is not consistent so therefore to suggest he can't be trusted is a bit bizarre. Compare that to mayhem May and her U turns not just in the general election campaign over the dementia tax but things like raising N.I. contributions before that.

Comes out with policies and at the first sign of trouble they get binned. That is not the sign of a politician or a party that run on principle or is to be trusted. Whatever is written in a Tory manifesto is not worth the paper it is written on.

It has been like that for some time with the Tories yet up till now they have got away with it. Cameron with his "no top down reform of the NHS" and going back further Lamont and his cynical raising of VAT from 8% to 15% just so he could say he stuck to a manifesto pledge not to double VAT. Taking people for mugs as if it was all a game.

They have for some time been clearly of the opinion they can say one thing and do another if they can dream up an excuse.

Now the results are in what a disaster for the country May called an election because she was riding high in the opinion polls and Corbyn ridiculed.What a farce we now face ourselves in
She called an election when she said that she would not do. To gain a bigger majority so that she could take to Brussels for brexit the EU will be laughing at us as they will now be able to do what they want to us.
A hung parliament is the worst thing that this country needed at this time .May did not even need to go to the polls she had a majority of 12 (19 if you count Sinn Fein not taking up their seats )
THE ONLY LOSERS ARE ALL OF US .

jaws1 wrote:Now the results are in what a disaster for the country May called an election because she was riding high in the opinion polls and Corbyn ridiculed.What a farce we now face ourselves in
She called an election when she said that she would not do. To gain a bigger majority so that she could take to Brussels for brexit the EU will be laughing at us as they will now be able to do what they want to us.
A hung parliament is the worst thing that this country needed at this time .May did not even need to go to the polls she had a majority of 12 (19 if you count Sinn Fein not taking up their seats )
THE ONLY LOSERS ARE ALL OF US .

Depends on what you see as happening as a result of her weakened position.

Remember she went to the country to seek a mandate for Brexit but would not tell us what that meant.

A large majority would have meant she would have to listen to no one and could have done as she pleased.

Now she may well have to listen to not only pro-single market MP's but even pro-EU MP's in her own party. The chance of a vote on any final deal and not walking away with no deal are higher than before.

From my point of view that means we are better off if it transpires that way. If you are pro-hard brexit you may not agree but that doesn't mean everyone thinks this is a disaster for us all.

One of the reasons things are different (and for me for the better) is while the DUP are pro Brexit they are also insistent on an open border with the Republic. There is no way the government can now walk away with no deal, as no deal = hard border.

Oh the irony http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... abour.html

Wormburner wrote:Oh the irony http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... abour.html

Was Corbyn the leader in 2010? If there is any irony here it is the pro Brexit DUP will ensure we remain in the single market.

That said I don't expect this government to last that long.

The final Brexit deal has to be approved by the Commons and the Lords. If the Tories do not have a majority in the Commons the deal will be defeated there. The Lords would then defeat it.
So what happens then? Do we revoke A50? Another in/out referendum?
The whole Brexit business looks in danger of failing now.

Wiganer Ted wrote: The whole Brexit business looks in danger of failing now.

If there is to be a Brexit it will have to be one the "left" of the Tory party approves of which in terms of single market, customs union and the role of the ECJ is not dissimilar to what the Labour Party went into the GE with. It also includes freedom of movement. How T May can negotiate that sort of deal with any credibility I have no idea.

She has two pet hates. Immigration and the ECJ. Doesn't matter if in practical terms either are required to trade with the EU unfettered she is opposed. No idea how she squares the circle on this one.

Wormburner wrote:Oh the irony http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/electio ... abour.html

Scraping the bottom of the barrel here, Meds. (a) It's about Gordon Brown's Labour Party - two leaders ago, like quoting IDS, or was it Hague or Howard? (b) If you read the article, Robinson was stirring things up against the other Unionist party. Brown's letter was IN NO WAY equivalent to the Tories dealings with the DUP. As an intelligent bloke, you know this and are just playing your usual games.