I Will Deal With It

Think he should send a message back. "I am not the Apprentice I am not fired. Stick to TV, Alan"

"erm because that's the side we're on ... I'm sure if we said we felt sorry for Tories having to scrap so many policies we'd be accused of patronising". Yes, I'm sure you would dj because you would be patronising wouldn't you.

So, a political party you do not support, drops policies you don't agree with and you cannot bring yourself to say 'that's a good thing' regardless of the reasons why the policies have been dropped "because that's (not) the side (you're) on"

May has had to drop these manifesto 'pledges' because she doesn't have a majority. If she'd got the land-slide she was confidently expecting she would have pushed on with them.

It's a good thing they were dropped because they were worthless policies.

You mean the same Alan Sugar who supported May in the election is trying to find something to attack Jeremy Corbyn with. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs.

Careful, Maizie, you'll be accused of being patronising.

Is Smileless playing her games again?

Is *Smileless playing her games again?*. No GracesGranMK2, she's just posting her opinion, which whilst it differs from yours, is everything bit as valid and interesting as anyone else's. Why would you say that games are being played? How arrogant can you get?

Patronising and arrogant in 6 posts.
Is that a record?

So who are you Darnsarf - her mother?

I have watched her and she keeps re-posing exactly the same questions leading people round and round in circles. She has had her answers.

1. May dropped the policies because she knew she could not get a majority.
2. This does not mean she has dropped the intention of bringing in these policies.
3. This does not mean the Conservatives have suddenly become the caring party who believe all levels of income should have shouldered the burden of austerity with the widest shoulders, who generally benefited from the issues which caused the global meltdown, paying by far the most as they will not be destitute or end up having to sell there homes to pay for their care.
4. On the grounds that the scorpion always does the same thing because it is it's nature, May and the Tories will return to beating up the poor and less able as soon as they cant.

So, while these policies not having been put into action is a good thing it may well be short-lived and it is no thanks to May.

can not can't

But that's exactly what happens on the political forums isn't it? Round and round in circles. The same arguments. The same points of view. And that's fine until someone goes against your opinion.

Does that mean the next labour government will enter a futile war and sell our gold reserves at the lowest price in 20 years because the scorpion always does the same thing because it is it's nature
Or does that analogy only hold for the Tories?

I have little admiration for Alan Sugar whose rude and abrasive manner on The Apprentice, in my opinion, set a really bad example for aspiring managers and entrepreneurs.

My feeling is that if Alan Sugar doesn't rate you or like you, you must be doing something right.

Primrose I gather that you have little time for Corbyn or the Labour Party. Do you support a party or would you describe yourself as someone who is intereted in political issues but has no political affiliation?

Eloethan Just trying to see how the metric is applied. War/gold or just Tories? What's your view?

She's doing it again. No answer, just questions.

dj happy to answer questions applicable to the thread or my posts. I'm not answering personal questions though!

I can't see how a question can be seen as a personal intrusion when the person to whom the question is addressed is completely anonymous. It makes me wonder why you are so reluctant to disclose your affiliations. Wasn't it you who said a month or so ago that you had attended a political meeting in central London? So presumably you have some involvement in politics.

Why have you gone so far from the topic of the thread if you are happy to answer questions on it?

That isn't a question Primrose. You are acting more like the disciple of a religion chanting out a phrase - which means nothing to many others - and expecting us to express belief or not. You put forward no argument to substantiate the weird little chant.

I asked the same question twice yesterday afternoon dj and the only person who answered was devongirl. I didn't ask why the policies were dropped, I know why, I asked why some don't say they're pleased that they've been dropped. So the 4 points in your post of 25th July 22.17 are totally irrelevant to the question I asked.

If you want to know whether or not I'm playing games, why don't you ask me?

I'm pretty certain that Darnsarf isn't my mother but is clearly someone willing to enter into a discussion and respect the views of others even though they differ from her own.

Apologies dj my post is regarding gg's remarks, not yours.

No point in asking you Smileless as you really aren't interested in what anyone else says. You attempt to tie people in knots by insisting, really, really insisting on a few words and woe betide anyone who doesn't reply to just the words of your mantra - then you seem quite put out.

So the 4 points in your post of 25th July 22.17 are totally irrelevant to the question I asked.

You seem to just want people to say what you want them to say whether they agree or not. My points were relevant to MY answer to your question even if what you really want is for me just to agree with you: I don't. You and Primrose seem to think bringing things down to a chant - oh how we remember strong and how we remember stable, where are they now? - this just isn't enough for some of us - and probably never will be.

It is a personal question ( asking a poster to declare a political allegiance).
If it's stated, then fine, but we don't have to answer anything of that nature unless we want to, be it hair colour, number of DGC or what we vote.
Nobody is 'playing games' on here, it is all discussion, but saying that somebody is
Doing so ( or asking if they are) is simply a way of trying to annoy that poster ( ie.
Playing games!) The irony of it! ?
If posters don't like the policies that were dropped, then it should be a relief to them that they have been ( but that would be too simple and honest.)

Roses and Smileless It's all done to stop the discussion. Attack TM, the posters, their opinions - it's pathetic but the only thing they can think of doing. I'm just not engaging with it anymore. If they don't like what I post, they can 'Deal with it'

I have already said it was no doubt a relief to many that the policies were dropped. The point is, it might be short-lived relief if the Conservatives get an overall majority in the future. Relief yes, credit for the decision on the grounds that they were adopting a more listening/caring stance, no.