RidingPie

Coach
  • Content count

    1,385
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

212 Excellent

About RidingPie

  • Birthday
  1. More bad news. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/switzerland-rejects-post-brexit-alliance-uk-aganist-eu-european-union-deal-swiss-foreign-secretary-a7536896.html?cmpid=facebook-post
  2. Whilst I've never been happy about Adams et al being in politics, it's better than the alternative. The problems that caused the troubles were very real, and I honestly don't know if the issues are still there. I would be very disappointed if this was used as an excuse for escalating the troubles again.
  3. I seriously hope this is not correct and just talk. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/21/northern-irelands-eu-exit-will-destroy-peace-deal-says-gerry-adams?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  4. What an odd example to make! Fewer people would buy them if less people can afford it due to lack of money in the economy generally or a hiked up price due to the plummet in the value of sterling, combined with little to no wage inflation. Of course we could all just wait for Trump to sign a trade deal with us which doesn't just benefit the US.
  5. Barring a few slips it's generally very good. In fact I'd like to see balance and impartiality rolled out further in the media. Wouldn't it be great if the guardian, mail et al were more balanced as well.
  6. Also I'd add those figures were from when the Lib Dems were holding the Conservatives back from damaging it.
  7. And yet it has been independently judged as the best health service in the world a couple of years ago.
  8. I disagree John. The BBC is about as balanced a news outlet as they come in the U.K. To compare it to the guardian is laughable. If you're on the right of politics everything not right wing looks left even if it centre. Equally if you're on the left it looks right wing. If only the guardian, mail, et al could have some standards of balance. (Note I'm not saying the same because that would never happen)
  9. Oddly enough, under Osbourn that may have happened. Post brexit austerity was relaxed and £60bn of extra quantitative easing was introduced. So instead of raising money for that by raising taxes as Osbourn would have, the government have borrowed the money instead. So it looks like really we're in a doubly bad position. It's kept the economy in growth for now though.
  10. Well that will please some people because it will probably mean interest rates going up... even though the trigger for this is rising prices and not people having spare cash.
  11. It's a true saying, that in troubled times the left falls apart and the right falls in line.
  12. My point exactly. When you merge two entities its hard to tell which bit comes from where. Also the situation was different. My gut feeling is that whatever the case you'd hate or feel betrayed by the lib dems. One small question for you, which of course you not have to answer. Did you vote lib dem in protest in the 2010 GE believing that they would only do a deal with labour, inspite of the labour leaning press saying vote Clegg get Cameron, and the conservative leaning press saying vote Clegg get Brown?
  13. ;-) just don't call me Shirley. The lib dems were only formed in 1988 way after the Callaghan negotiations. I'm curious to know why you think a party that didn't exist (and was in fact two different parties at the time) would have the same policy then as now?
  14. Blooming heck your having to go a long way back for that justification. Their policy has changed since then! Parties do change policy direction.