Hillman avenger wrote:
So you DO think you know more than they do, purely from your own experience. No wonder you get so upset; you ,like Twing, would rather have reality adapt to you than the other way around.
Why does horatio constantly refer to roy twing in the third person, and rarely do him the courtesy of replying to one of his posts directly?
In this post, as is frequently the case, - he makes snide, vague allegations about roy twing's views, and again rarely bothers to back them up.
Perhaps horatio assumes his amateurish and confusing style of embedding his replies almost invisibly within the previous responder's post will just go unnoticed?
Sadact7 wrote:As I said, good tradesmen are rarely out of work
What bit of undercut are you not getting?
People pay for good quality and good reputation.
Shite workmen don't often get hired twice.
Again what bit of undercut are you not getting, I have already said let's assume the quality of work is the same.
Well you can't, so your argument is flawed
I can say let's assume the quality of the work is the same, I already have.
My arguement is perfect, you said "they're not good enough" and so far the only thing not good enough is your arguement to back that statement up hence why you have to keep changing tack about quality and how much work a good tradesman gets.
It's nothing to do with being "good enough" it's to do with economics of other countries at the cost of ours.
I've been pretty consistent, good tradesmen are rarely out of work. If you have to move with the market then fine, but there isn't an army of Eastern Europeans coming here undercutting good British tradesmen en masse and putting them out of work. And good tradesmen generally don't have to undercut themselves and put themselves out of pocket to ensure a full orderbook
Well seeing as I am a "Good tradesman" who luckily is still in work (at rates I was getting 10 years ago) but has personally seen it happen all over the country day in day out for at least the last 3 years on getting on for every contract I've worked at where multi trades are present including Tesco, Sainsburys, Lidl, Aldis, Boots and near enough every air conditioning job I've worked on in London, I'd have to disagree, what are your credentials or source of opinion?
There's nothing unique about what you say applying to "tradesmen".
If you compete on price , in any business, you had better have really low costs, because there is always someone else who will be cheaper than you, irrespective of origin. If you offer some valued difference, which could be in quality of work or product, reliability, etc, you can stand your ground. In the end people will come to you.
This is one of the things badly wrong in pretty much all of the public sector outsourcing we have seen over the last twenty years. The preoccupation with cost, rather than value, usually means that an inferior service is the result, and that quite often the low bidder ends up going out of business. Ask anyone who's been involved in the care industry.
A few years ago I worked inside an insurance company which had outsourced routine processing work to India. It appeared that the internet made this all possible and big savings would be made. Within 18 months the insurer had to employ a dedicated team to keep on top of the quality and responsiveness of the work done in India. The total cost ended up greater than it had been before the outsourcing, and the company's reputation for service suffered.
We are currently spending close to £13000 on some home improvements. We could have saved maybe £1000-2000 but we were not sure that the work would be good enough. It's one of the myths of capitalism that people are always looking for the lowest price, but everyday you can see examples of people paying more than they have to, from informed choice.
Nigel Farage mocked by MEPs as 'big loser' of general election
European Parliament descends into laughter as Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, is openly mocked by fellow MEPs for failing to win a seat
Finch-o is launching UKPIE this weekend so get ready to err get behind him. He's got a pie for every honest worker in Britain and a pie in the face for every filthy immigrant.
the rotary club wrote:Nigel Farage mocked by MEPs as 'big loser' of general election
European Parliament descends into laughter
That is nothing compared to how they will laugh at turning the UK into a Third World country by funnelling all the North Africans here .
Farage will simply relocate to Germany and live with the in-laws.
Boris " Do not look at what I am doing, Look how cute and adorable Dilyn is.....Look at Dilyn ! "
I've always said they will allow 16 years olds to vote in the EU referendum as they know their educational brainwashing on the matter will result in an overall Yes from that group., especially when they haven't yet experienced the job market, or lack of one when they eventually do.
m4rkb wrote:I've always said they will allow 16 years olds to vote in the EU referendum as they know their educational brainwashing on the matter will result in an overall Yes from that group., especially when they haven't yet experienced the job market, or lack of one when they eventually do.
Today we hear this is likely to be true.
1. What educational brainwashing?
2. Why does not having worked yet mean they have no say? They will live with the outcome long beyond us.
That rotten old BBC actually says the opposite- there is no plan to allow them to. In addition Brits living overseas will ne excluded, so if they were fiddling it that would be a REALLY dumb thing to do.
We are 18-24 months away from this vote; could you and Twing restrain yourselves from rubbishing the outcome for the months ahead?
m4rkb wrote:I've always said they will allow 16 years olds to vote in the EU referendum as they know their educational brainwashing on the matter will result in an overall Yes from that group., especially when they haven't yet experienced the job market, or lack of one when they eventually do.
Today we hear this is likely to be true.
If you've always said that (lets be honest you haven't you're just lying) then you've always been wrong
'The franchise will not include 16 and 17-year-olds,'
m4rkb wrote:I've always said they will allow 16 years olds to vote in the EU referendum as they know their educational brainwashing on the matter will result in an overall Yes from that group., especially when they haven't yet experienced the job market, or lack of one when they eventually do.
Today we hear this is likely to be true.
1. What educational brainwashing?
2. Why does not having worked yet mean they have no say? They will live with the outcome long beyond us.
That rotten old BBC actually says the opposite- there is no plan to allow them to. In addition Brits living overseas will ne excluded, so if they were fiddling it that would be a REALLY dumb thing to do.
We are 18-24 months away from this vote; could you and Twing restrain yourselves from rubbishing the outcome for the months ahead?
2. Not allowing 16 & 17 year-olds to vote is completely fair, given the voting age for all other elections, - that much is surely a no-brainer?
Not allowing non-UK citizens you vote is also surely a no-brainer?
The 3rd person asks if I might refrain from rubbishing the referendum, - I would be happy to do so if the above conditions remain in place, and if a third factor were also guaranteed, - that equal funds were spent in promoting the 2 sides of the debate.
The Daily Mail and Paul Nuttall from three years ago - right oh - is that really the best you can do?
There is a recent precedent for 16 / 17 year olds to vote on matters of sovereignty in referendums. The all other elections voting age is an irrelevance.
The 'no-brainer' (what an appropriate phrase) for you so called libertarians is surely the old adage no taxation without representation - that would be a completely fair model, I'm sure you'll agree eh Roy?
the rotary club wrote:
The Daily Mail and Paul Nuttall from three years ago - right oh - is that really the best you can do?
I can do much 'better' in terms of recent reports, but what purpose would that serve? I'm becoming convinced if I started defended bloody muslims, you'd start criticising 'em.
the rotary club wrote:There is a recent precedent for 16 / 17 year olds to vote on matters of sovereignty in referendums. The all other elections voting age is an irrelevance.
I disagree, -for the reasons already stated.
the rotary club wrote:The 'no-brainer' (what an appropriate phrase) for you so called libertarians is surely the old adage no taxation without representation - that would be a completely fair model, I'm sure you'll agree eh Roy?
I tend to agree, - maybe those 16 & 17 year olds who are paying tax could be included. And maybe those (of all ages) receiving more benefits than they pay in taxes should be precluded - agree?
m4rkb wrote:I've always said they will allow 16 years olds to vote in the EU referendum as they know their educational brainwashing on the matter will result in an overall Yes from that group., especially when they haven't yet experienced the job market, or lack of one when they eventually do.
Today we hear this is likely to be true.
1. What educational brainwashing?
2. Why does not having worked yet mean they have no say? They will live with the outcome long beyond us.
That rotten old BBC actually says the opposite- there is no plan to allow them to. In addition Brits living overseas will ne excluded, so if they were fiddling it that would be a REALLY dumb thing to do.
We are 18-24 months away from this vote; could you and Twing restrain yourselves from rubbishing the outcome for the months ahead?
2. Not allowing 16 & 17 year-olds to vote is completely fair, given the voting age for all other elections, - that much is surely a no-brainer?
Not allowing non-UK citizens you vote is also surely a no-brainer?
The 3rd person asks if I might refrain from rubbishing the referendum, - I would be happy to do so if the above conditions remain in place, and if a third factor were also guaranteed, - that equal funds were spent in promoting the 2 sides of the debate.
I thought I'd recall what I said a month ago regarding the fairness of any forthcoming EU referendum, - I guessed there would be ways found to ensure the propaganda machinery can do its work:
The MPs backed an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill aimed at ensuring the government could not campaign to stay in the European Union in the weeks leading up to the poll.
Seems strange, given that farage said almost exactly the same himself on LBC on wednesday morning.
So why such drastic action taken against someone for mildly criticising Nigel Farage? She's right, that's what's upset the dear leader.
As I said, farage himself said that he shouldn't be the one leading the 'no' campaign as he could be seen as divisive - I heard him say exactly that on LBC wednesday morning, - why would she be sacked for simply repeating it? It doesn't make sense.
edit - this is what he said:
“The role of Ukip, the role of myself will be important. That’s not saying that I have to take the lead,” Farage said. “I would be prepared to of course. But I suspect what we will see is somebody coming from completely outside of normal politics, somebody from the world of business or entertainment that hasn’t got any political baggage at all. I think someone like that may well emerge.”
Seems strange, given that farage said almost exactly the same himself on LBC on wednesday morning.
So why such drastic action taken against someone for mildly criticising Nigel Farage? She's right, that's what's upset the dear leader.
As I said, farage himself said that he shouldn't be the one leading the 'no' campaign as he could be seen as divisive - I heard him say exactly that on LBC wednesday morning, - why would she be sacked for simply repeating it? It doesn't make sense.
edit - this is what he said:
“The role of Ukip, the role of myself will be important. That’s not saying that I have to take the lead,” Farage said. “I would be prepared to of course. But I suspect what we will see is somebody coming from completely outside of normal politics, somebody from the world of business or entertainment that hasn’t got any political baggage at all. I think someone like that may well emerge.”
Well we're agreed it doesn't make sense. She's been demoted & humiliated for repeating stuff that Farage has said about himself.
Seems strange, given that farage said almost exactly the same himself on LBC on wednesday morning.
So why such drastic action taken against someone for mildly criticising Nigel Farage? She's right, that's what's upset the dear leader.
As I said, farage himself said that he shouldn't be the one leading the 'no' campaign as he could be seen as divisive - I heard him say exactly that on LBC wednesday morning, - why would she be sacked for simply repeating it? It doesn't make sense.
edit - this is what he said:
“The role of Ukip, the role of myself will be important. That’s not saying that I have to take the lead,” Farage said. “I would be prepared to of course. But I suspect what we will see is somebody coming from completely outside of normal politics, somebody from the world of business or entertainment that hasn’t got any political baggage at all. I think someone like that may well emerge.”
Well we're agreed it doesn't make sense. She's been demoted & humiliated for repeating stuff that Farage has said about himself.
Twitter conversation involving Douglas Carswell MP
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · Jul 23
If the Labour Party does split, I hope any Labour leavers in Parliament do the right thing and hold a by election....
Sir arthur lawrence @arthurlawrence5 · Jul 23
@DouglasCarswell Why is that ? Do you want to increase the majority of the Party you turned traitor on ? You are as thick as two planks.
Douglas Carswell MP @DouglasCarswell · Jul 23
@arthurlawrence5 you are so kind
Syrians fleeing the civil war aren't genuine refugees says the lying attention seeker.
There is some good news though he still harbours ambitions of fucking up leading the No campaign.
He admitted that he did want to lead the official No campaign during the EU referendum
Roy Twing wrote:
As I said, farage himself said that he shouldn't be the one leading the 'no' campaign as he could be seen as divisive - I heard him say exactly that on LBC wednesday morning, - why would she be sacked for simply repeating it? It doesn't make sense.
