Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on February 06, 2024, 03:13:18 pm
-
Another one jumping overboard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-68214536
Good riddance. What is it about Tory Chancellors?
Barber's mad dash for growth in the 70s that gave us the worst inflation in the West.
Howe's deflationary Budget in 81 that turned a bad recession into a 4-million-out-of-work disaster.
Lawson's Boom in the late 80s that overheated the economy and led to the 90-91 recession.
Osborne's Austerity that gave us the worst decade of economic performance in 200 years.
Then Kwarteng's mad, unfunded tax cuts for the rich that tanked the Pound and sent mortgages rocketing.
No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those. But the Tories are usually thought of as being trustworthy on the economy? Strange, how folk come to their conclusions.
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
Watch out BB , Silly Billy will some be proclaiming Gordon ‘Brownbottom’ the saviour of the world!
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
And of them three, one managed to completely derail pension funds held by working people to such an extent that anyone retiring in the next 10 years will have a greatly reduced pension pot (DC pension) because of the buffoon meddling with pension dividend payments. This will impact a great many workers into their retirement and in some cases would ensure they live a greatly diminished retirement.
Thanks Mr Brown.
PS Luckily people in the know managed to transfer their DC pensions out of the typical "company lifestyle" scheme and avoided having a pension loaded with bonds and gilts that achieved very little growth for years since his meddling and managed to avoid the collapse last year that wiped out billions in pension pots.
So much for the Labour scheme to divert all company pensions into these stingy paying funds when the norm had been to have it invested in equity funds that compounded and grew over the years.
-
Come on lads. Get it all out. All that shite deep down in your lungs. Big deep breath and cough it all up.
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
-
Come on lads. Get it all out. All that shite deep down in your lungs. Big deep breath and cough it all up.
"That bloke who was in here last night complaining about the lack of sensible, intelligent political debate will be livid when he sees what Silly Billy has just posted"
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
There's been a Labour Chancellor for 35% of the previous 50 years.
Embarrassing to have to point that out to you, but there we are.
One reason there have only been 3 in that time is that they tended to stay in role for a long time, because they didn't regularly impose batshit policies that f**ked up the economy like Tory Chancellors frequently have.
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
I think that the next one will be following Hunts policies.
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
And of them three, one managed to completely derail pension funds held by working people to such an extent that anyone retiring in the next 10 years will have a greatly reduced pension pot (DC pension) because of the buffoon meddling with pension dividend payments. This will impact a great many workers into their retirement and in some cases would ensure they live a greatly diminished retirement.
Thanks Mr Brown.
PS Luckily people in the know managed to transfer their DC pensions out of the typical "company lifestyle" scheme and avoided having a pension loaded with bonds and gilts that achieved very little growth for years since his meddling and managed to avoid the collapse last year that wiped out billions in pension pots.
So much for the Labour scheme to divert all company pensions into these stingy paying funds when the norm had been to have it invested in equity funds that compounded and grew over the years.
It's rare I have a foray into politics on here , but as a Pension Fund Rep ( like a Shop Steward ) from 1980 onwards and crawled my way up to Member Elected Trustee I can't let the slight on Gordon Brown above go without a comment
Basically as I recalled it ( and I was right ) it was Thatcher and her Chancellor who first made the first moves on Pension Funds and in particular the massive surpluses they were racking up in those days
Rather than just throwing my thought or notion I looked it up and here from an article in the Independent in 2018 is the extract that proved me right
Politicians from across the political spectrum have played their part in this. In 1988, Margaret Thatcher’s chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, imposed a tax on pension fund surpluses in a bid to stop pension schemes taking advantage of excessive tax relief to build up their reserves. This policy chanfge led to many companies taking a “holiday” from contributing to their reserves, in order to avoid this tax. In turn, these pension holidays led to a depletion of rainy day pension fund surpluses.
Initially, this wasn’t a problem. Booming stock markets in the 1990s led to even fatter pension fund surpluses and this proved an irresistible target for the Blairite government that came to power in 1997. The chancellor, Gordon Brown, abolished substantial tax relief on dividends that pension funds received on their investments.
Mr Brown and others that followed did also meddle to greater or lesser extents but as can be seen he wasn't the first NOR the last
Well done Nigel Lawson ( anagram We all Sign on ) you win the prize for sticking the knife into Final Salary Schemes FIRST
And here is the chronology .... and I remember at one point "our Pension Scheme " had more money in our Surplus that our Parent Company was valued at. No wonder Thatcher and Lawson fired the initial shots
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/pension-retirement-defined-benefit-contribution-funds-risky-a8479426.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/pension-retirement-defined-benefit-contribution-funds-risky-a8479426.html)
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
There's been a Labour Chancellor for 35% of the previous 50 years.
Embarrassing to have to point that out to you, but there we are.
One reason there have only been 3 in that time is that they tended to stay in role for a long time, because they didn't regularly impose batshit policies that f**ked up the economy like Tory Chancellors frequently have.
Wow, we've had a Labour party for 18 years out of the last 50! Whoopie doo!
Dem poor Tories must be feeling well neglected by the electorate!
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
There's been a Labour Chancellor for 35% of the previous 50 years.
Embarrassing to have to point that out to you, but there we are.
One reason there have only been 3 in that time is that they tended to stay in role for a long time, because they didn't regularly impose batshit policies that f**ked up the economy like Tory Chancellors frequently have.
Wow, we've had a Labour party for 18 years out of the last 50! Whoopie doo!
Dem poor Tories must be feeling well neglected by the electorate!
Yep. He's going to be absolutely incandescent.
Once again BB, you bring f**k all of any worth to a conversation. Just an obsession with ignoring evidence and fighting a corner you don't even understand.
-
What evidence have I ignored, silly Billy?
-
I gave 6 examples of Tory Chancellors making textbook macroeconomic errors with disastrous results.
Your depressingly, boringly predictable response was some shite about how few Labour chancellors there have been, then a follow up about Labour only being in power for 18 of 50 years.
You COULD have discussed the evidence of the economic cases. But you've no interest in that, because you've zero to offer, barring dragging every discussion you join down into the gutter.
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
There's been a Labour Chancellor for 35% of the previous 50 years.
Embarrassing to have to point that out to you, but there we are.
One reason there have only been 3 in that time is that they tended to stay in role for a long time, because they didn't regularly impose batshit policies that f**ked up the economy like Tory Chancellors frequently have.
Wow, we've had a Labour party for 18 years out of the last 50! Whoopie doo!
Dem poor Tories must be feeling well neglected by the electorate!
But the fruitcake Truss has been telling everyone that will listen that the Country has been taken over by lefties, 18 years out of 50 doesn’t suggest that
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
So you'd think then that all services from the armed forces to teaching/schools, hospitals, police etc, etc, etc would be cashed up and humming along and everyone happy, no?
-
"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."
There's only been three!
It's like a Barnsley fan taking pride in saying his team has been relegated from the Premiership fewer times than Man City.
There's been a Labour Chancellor for 35% of the previous 50 years.
Embarrassing to have to point that out to you, but there we are.
One reason there have only been 3 in that time is that they tended to stay in role for a long time, because they didn't regularly impose batshit policies that f**ked up the economy like Tory Chancellors frequently have.
Wow, we've had a Labour party for 18 years out of the last 50! Whoopie doo!
Dem poor Tories must be feeling well neglected by the electorate!
But the fruitcake Truss has been telling everyone that will listen that the Country has been taken over by lefties, 18 years out of 50 doesn’t suggest that
Don't listen to fruitcakes.
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
So you'd think then that all services from the armed forces to teaching/schools, hospitals, police etc, etc, etc would be cashed up and humming along and everyone happy, no?
I think we might have been better off at this moment in time without Brexit, the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. As I understood it, Johnson wanted to get away from austerity, but the events mentioned prevented that. I think Johnson was dealt a horrific hand.
-
Let's be honest here though bb, he didn't really help his own cause, did he? Churchillian, absolutely not.
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
So you'd think then that all services from the armed forces to teaching/schools, hospitals, police etc, etc, etc would be cashed up and humming along and everyone happy, no?
I think we might have been better off at this moment in time without Brexit, the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. As I understood it, Johnson wanted to get away from austerity, but the events mentioned prevented that. I think Johnson was dealt a horrific hand.
Agreed BB but not a chance in hell of the usual suspects (popular phrase on here isn’t it) accepting those things.
There is no doubt that Labour would have handled it all much better
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
So you'd think then that all services from the armed forces to teaching/schools, hospitals, police etc, etc, etc would be cashed up and humming along and everyone happy, no?
I think we might have been better off at this moment in time without Brexit, the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine. As I understood it, Johnson wanted to get away from austerity, but the events mentioned prevented that. I think Johnson was dealt a horrific hand.
For what its worth, johnson's (biggus dickus) hand has been mostly either in his own or someone else's pants for most of life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrcbCW4y9Dw
-
BST.
I skim over most of what you write. Otherwise, I'd waste even more time disagreeing with you.
I responded with the fact that Labour only had three Chancellors in those 50 years. As the Tories had had 12 in that time, and been in power almost twice as long, it is obvious that someone on a mission like you would take advantage of that longer period of Tory rule, which would inevitably involve more mistakes because more decisions had to be made over the longer period, to pick out what you think were the negatives, with the use of hindsight, of course.
.....Hence, the brilliant Barnsley fan analogy.
As I say, nothing to offer but right wing flag waving.
I'd happily discuss with anyone who wants to why the six examples I gave were disasters that were predicted at the time (no hindsight) by respected economists.
Why the economic textbooks explain to anyone interested why the pro-cyclical fiscal and monetary policies that underpinned most of those disasters are exactly the wrong thing to do. Why the batshit unfunded £45bn of tax cuts for the wealthy that Kwarteng and Truss pushed through were absolute madness.
But you're not interested in discussing any of that are you? You are so bitterly obsessed with just knee-jerk piss and wind support for your right wing side. You convinced yourself that anyone who criticises them must be acting in bad faith. Which says everything about you.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
You defend the indefensible? Really? Why?
-
You support the insupportable? Really? Why?
-
You support the insupportable? Really? Why?
How is, for example, questioning where the promised £350 Million a week to the NHS is supporting the unsupportable BB?
-
What surprises me is Labour and the Tories that fixated on each other, none of them seem to be at all fazed by the Reform party and the independent movement springing up supporting Palestine, a subject nothing to do with our election but could be a problem for the Labour party who could lose their usual following by immigrants who tend to live closely in some of labours city boroughs, especially in Lancashire, West Yorkshire and the South East.
Also I think that such as in the Doncaster area and the Red Wall areas historical Labour voters are as likely to vote Reform as Labour while Tory voters in those areas are less likely to desert.
It could be a thorn in both parties sides and also will the voter ID system have a significant reaction to the vote.
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
-
You support the insupportable? Really? Why?
How is, for example, questioning where the promised £350 Million a week to the NHS is supporting the unsupportable BB?
To use that slogan as a form of a Tory slur is a way of supporting the Labour Party indirectly because the Labour Party itself is showing no signs of offering anything different.
Showing disapproval of the opposition is the only way of showing approval to them.
To simplify it for you it is like a Scunthorpe United fan saying they support Scunny because Donny Rovers are shite!
-
Gosh and I thought the ₤350m was an incentive to vote for brexit, who knew aye?
-
You support the insupportable? Really? Why?
How is, for example, questioning where the promised £350 Million a week to the NHS is supporting the unsupportable BB?
To use that slogan as a form of a Tory slur is a way of supporting the Labour Party indirectly because the Labour Party itself is showing no signs of offering anything different.
Showing disapproval of the opposition is the only way of showing approval to them.
To simplify it for you it is like a Scunthorpe United fan saying they support Scunny because Donny Rovers are shite!
It isn't a slur, it's a question of fact that that is what was promised but not delivered. Just as the non delivery of the 40 promised hospitals is a question of fact. I could go on. So why do you defend those, and other, failures? Surely it is easier to accept truth than to deny it, it's also not the stupid option!
As for saying your arguments are like a Scunthorpe United fan saying they support Scunny because Donny Rovers are shite simply beggars belief!
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Aren't the Tories claiming that MORE than £350m is now being put into the NHS every week?
Is it also true that the author of that slogan, Dominic Cummings, has now left the Tory Party, and the Tory Party's new PM is trying to make the best of the situation, just like the Labour Party with Keir Starmer will do later on this year?
Is it also true that you will condemn Labour opponents who call Starmer, who campaigned to stay in the EU and once pushed for a second Brexit referendum, then used his first speech of 2023 to promise to “embrace” the Brexiteer message pushed by ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for being a turncoat?
Regarding the promised hospitals, who's to say that the project wouldn't have been much further along had it not been for Johnson being dealt a blow after blow series of disasters of horric proportions during his Premiership?
Your post has just reiterated the accuracy of the analogy of a Scunthorpe United fan saying they support Scunny because Donny Rovers are shite.
Thanks for that!
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Aren't the Tories claiming that MORE than £350m is now being put into the NHS every week?
Is it also true that the author of that slogan, Dominic Cummings, has now left the Tory Party, and the Tory Party's new PM is trying to make the best of the situation, just like the Labour Party with Keir Starmer will do later on this year?
Is it also true that you will condemn Labour opponents who call Starmer, who campaigned to stay in the EU and once pushed for a second Brexit referendum, then used his first speech of 2023 to promise to “embrace” the Brexiteer message pushed by ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for being a turncoat?
Regarding the promised hospitals, who's to say that the project wouldn't have been much further along had it not been for Johnson being dealt a blow after blow series of disasters of horric proportions during his Premiership?
Your post has just reiterated the accuracy of the analogy of a Scunthorpe United fan saying they support Scunny because Donny Rovers are shite.
Thanks for that!
Ah the old 'alternative facts' BB. Come on, you're better than that. I suppose you'll have alternative facts for the misuse of the Fast Lane and the acquisition of PPE through it that wasn't fit for purpose too.
As for Starmer, I've already written to my MP, Rosie Winterton, criticising amongst other things his stance of Gaza and what Israel is doing there and on the West Bank.
And, if Labour do form the next government I will be openly critical of anything they do which is shown to be patently wrong by the facts. Pity you can't do the same with the Tories.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
-
Here goes that Scunny fan again! Not like you to forward yet another Tory 'scandal' in support of your glorious Labour Party, is it NNK?
Yes, that was a mistake by Sunak, although you failed to mention that Sunak did address Mrs Ghey admirably and compassionately afterwards. But, not only was it a careless thing to say in Mrs Ghey's presence, but it was also poor tactically because it also gave Starmer a great opportunity to escape from answering allegations that he'd broken every single promise he was elected on.
Phew!
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
That matters not. It was almost certainly written prior to PMQ's and not something spontaneous as it was part of Sunak's whole 'have a go at Starmer' set. If she were not in the gallery at the time is fortunate, though due to the publicity she would have quickly become aware of it and anyway, she was certainly there when the request for an apology, (which he didn't give), was made.
Irrespective, it was totally disgusting given the short time after the trauma the mother suffered during the trial and sentencing!
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
That matters not. It was almost certainly written prior to PMQ's and not something spontaneous as it was part of Sunak's whole 'have a go at Starmer' set. If she were not in the gallery at the time is fortunate, though due to the publicity she would have quickly become aware of it and anyway, she was certainly there when the request for an apology, (which he didn't give), was made.
Irrespective, it was totally disgusting given the short time after the trauma the mother suffered during the trial and sentencing!
So if quoting something that's not true "matters not" to give credence to your sensational soundbite then your whole point is tainted.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
That matters not. It was almost certainly written prior to PMQ's and not something spontaneous as it was part of Sunak's whole 'have a go at Starmer' set. If she were not in the gallery at the time is fortunate, though due to the publicity she would have quickly become aware of it and anyway, she was certainly there when the request for an apology, (which he didn't give), was made.
Irrespective, it was totally disgusting given the short time after the trauma the mother suffered during the trial and sentencing!
So if quoting something that's not true "matters not" to give credence to your sensational soundbite then your whole point is tainted.
I don't understand the point you're making DD.
-
I think it's the sound of horses galloping and bugles blaring NNK
-
The idea a certain poster has of bringing counter balance to the arguement of you "loony lefties" is hilarious.
It's failed as badly as the Tories levelling up policy and just makes both look like fools.
I await being savaged by the blue rinse brigade.
I always thought that referred to old dears,but this off topic proves it's bitter old blokes too.
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
Starmer definitely said that the mother was in the chamber.
So he either doesn’t know who is in the chamber or he has lied to get a brownie point.
I am beginning to wonder whether I should vote for him or not.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
Where do you start......
Never mind me, many (maybe most?) Labour supporters on this forum dislike The Labour Party as it is now under Starmer. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who probably voted for Corbyn and now show disdain for his replacement - The bloke who stabbed him in the back.
You would have voted for Corbyn, the bloke who you have since described as being mind-numbingly thick, just because he's Labour, but now YOU ALSO have stabbed Corbyn in the back, and now show your utmost support for his backstabber, Starmer, just because he's Labour.
THAT is YOUR standard of politics.
Oh, and thanks for the offer, but go and f**k yourself.
-
Thinking about the situation here, perhaps I should have taken the moderator's advice and just ignored you. It's just that I don't like anyone ruling the roost unchallenged, which seems to be what you and your little band of lefties want.
-
Thinking about the situation here, perhaps I should have taken the moderator's advice and just ignored you. It's just that I don't like anyone ruling the roost unchallenged, which seems to be what you and your little band of lefties want.
Then have a constructive debate instead of continually acting like a t**t and you might, just might, succeed.
-
Ha ha, here comes Mr Wigerly, right on time! What was that claim about Hound and me being tribal Billy boy?
"OOh, the playground bully is fighting, I'm right behind you my master and protector... Can I have a kick?"....
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
Where do you start......
Never mind me, many (maybe most?) Labour supporters on this forum dislike The Labour Party as it is now under Starmer. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who probably voted for Corbyn and now show disdain for his replacement - The bloke who stabbed him in the back.
You would have voted for Corbyn, the bloke who you have since described as being mind-numbingly thick, just because he's Labour, but now YOU ALSO have stabbed Corbyn in the back, and now show your utmost support for his backstabber, Starmer, just because he's Labour.
THAT is YOUR standard of politics.
Oh, and thanks for the offer, but go and f**k yourself.
Ha ha ha.
It's evident somebody twagged debating class at St Peters . :whistle:
-
Ha ha, here comes Mr Wigerly, right on time! What was that claim about Hound and me being tribal Billy boy?
"OOh, the playground bully is fighting, I'm right behind you my master and protector... Can I have a kick?"....
See my previous post.
Don't forget to rinse that hair tonight boys
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
Where do you start......
Never mind me, many (maybe most?) Labour supporters on this forum dislike The Labour Party as it is now under Starmer. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who probably voted for Corbyn and now show disdain for his replacement - The bloke who stabbed him in the back.
You would have voted for Corbyn, the bloke who you have since described as being mind-numbingly thick, just because he's Labour, but now YOU ALSO have stabbed Corbyn in the back, and now show your utmost support for his backstabber, Starmer, just because he's Labour.
THAT is YOUR standard of politics.
Oh, and thanks for the offer, but go and f**k yourself.
Ha ha ha.
It's evident somebody twagged debating class at St Peters . :whistle:
I bet you spent plenty of time in there mass debating eh, Spanish Troll.
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
Where do you start......
Never mind me, many (maybe most?) Labour supporters on this forum dislike The Labour Party as it is now under Starmer. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who probably voted for Corbyn and now show disdain for his replacement - The bloke who stabbed him in the back.
You would have voted for Corbyn, the bloke who you have since described as being mind-numbingly thick, just because he's Labour, but now YOU ALSO have stabbed Corbyn in the back, and now show your utmost support for his backstabber, Starmer, just because he's Labour.
THAT is YOUR standard of politics.
Oh, and thanks for the offer, but go and f**k yourself.
Ha ha ha.
It's evident somebody twagged debating class at St Peters . :whistle:
I bet you spent plenty of time in there mass debating eh, Spanish Troll.
Oh dear.
When you have nothing left to offer and you tank is empty you resort to calling posters trolls.
Pathetic.
You have no arguments apart from waffle.
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
-
Ha ha, here comes Mr Wigerly, right on time! What was that claim about Hound and me being tribal Billy boy?
"OOh, the playground bully is fighting, I'm right behind you my master and protector... Can I have a kick?"....
Right on time? You mean one of the now less frequent times I'm actually feeling well enough to come and look at the forum?
Mind you, you're always your obnoxious self so I suppose any time is right on time.
Take the words of the only person you respect and act on them.
go and f**k yourself.
-
BST.
If you're not happy discussing with me, then don't! I've never asked you to in the first place.
I don't support the Tories, I defend them. I defend them from your biased, one-sided ramblings to level the playing field.
The way I feel now is I can't wait until your glorious Labour Party gains power. It'll be wonderful witnessing you digging a hole so deep you'll end up bumping into your mate Sydney.
BB.
And that gets to the core of your problem.
You defend them BECAUSE THEY AREN'T LABOUR.
You are totally disinterested in facts or evidence or nuanced argument. You defend them simply because you despise the other side, although you don't seem to know WHY you despise the other side.
Assessment of policy failings, political philosophy, personal probity etc never crosses your mind. People you don't like don't like the Tories, so you have to defend them.
It would be pitiful. Except that people like you have a vote.
Billy, I think that BB probably defends the abuse that some Labour supporters throw at the government because those people don’t like Tory’s.
He probably knows that those same people despise the government because they are not Labour.
I really do hope that the inevitable Labour GE win that is being increasingly predicted by people on here (including me) happens because I am wanting to see if they make a better job of things.
If they don’t though then I doubt that they will receive the same level of abuse that is currently thrown at the current government.
There might be some light criticism but that will be with some level of excuses offered too.
Absof**kinglutely, Hound.
And that sums up the problem with the pair of you.
You dislike Labour because they are Labour.
So you instinctively assume that those of us who dislike the Tories dislike them because they are Tories.
Whereas in fact, we dislike the Tories because of their policies and the effect they have on society.
Effects like these, which I have a major personal stake in.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FkoNIRBWYAAw1uu.jpg
I'll say again, every serious criticism I have of the Tories is backed up with evidence. And vice versa. I'm happy to give a thumbs up when they implement positive policies.
For example, the pension triple lock has gone some way to raising the baseline that the poorest pensioners get. They deserve credit for that.
For example, the furlough scheme(*) and the vaccine rollout.
For example, after the disastrous economic management of Lawson and Lamont, Ken Clarke ran absolutely textbook economic policies to bring us out of the early 90s recession and Black Wednesday mess. He deserves far more credit for that than he has received.
The problem that you and Hound have is that you are tribal. And being tribal, you assume everyone else has the same standards as your own. Which is why so many of these discussions get dragged away from substantive debate and into shit slinging.
Try not doing it. Just once. Try to engage on facts and evidence and assume the people you are talking to are fair and honest.
(*)It's indicative of your approach BB that when I praised the furlough scheme, you actually said I was doing it so that I could give an example of praising the Tories to give more credence to my criticisms, like it's part of some sinister gaslighting strategy.
You actually said that.
And you complain about the standard of political debate. f**k me sideways.
Where do you start......
Never mind me, many (maybe most?) Labour supporters on this forum dislike The Labour Party as it is now under Starmer. They are the honest ones. They are the ones who probably voted for Corbyn and now show disdain for his replacement - The bloke who stabbed him in the back.
You would have voted for Corbyn, the bloke who you have since described as being mind-numbingly thick, just because he's Labour, but now YOU ALSO have stabbed Corbyn in the back, and now show your utmost support for his backstabber, Starmer, just because he's Labour.
THAT is YOUR standard of politics.
Oh, and thanks for the offer, but go and f**k yourself.
Ha ha ha.
It's evident somebody twagged debating class at St Peters . :whistle:
I bet you spent plenty of time in there mass debating eh, Spanish Troll.
Also be careful with silly accusations or you'll have the other fool on here accusing you of homophobic comments
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
Debating politics, ha ha, like you do (not).
Your posts are usually to offer abuse to posters not on your team.
Your hero has gone on record as not being a fan of the countries pensioners and you are even copying him on that now as several of your recent posts indicate.
And you have the temerity to talk about brown nosing.
Do us all a favour and take another three year sabbatical.
-
Ha ha, here comes Mr Wigerly, right on time! What was that claim about Hound and me being tribal Billy boy?
"OOh, the playground bully is fighting, I'm right behind you my master and protector... Can I have a kick?"....
Right on time? You mean one of the now less frequent times I'm actually feeling well enough to come and look at the forum?
Mind you, you're always your obnoxious self so I suppose any time is right on time.
Take the words of the only person you respect and act on them.
go and f**k yourself.
Me obnoxious! That's amazing coming from you!
-
Ha ha, here comes Mr Wigerly, right on time! What was that claim about Hound and me being tribal Billy boy?
"OOh, the playground bully is fighting, I'm right behind you my master and protector... Can I have a kick?"....
Right on time? You mean one of the now less frequent times I'm actually feeling well enough to come and look at the forum?
Mind you, you're always your obnoxious self so I suppose any time is right on time.
Take the words of the only person you respect and act on them.
go and f**k yourself.
Me obnoxious! That's amazing coming from you!
But I actually bothered to take the advice from the moderators - unlike you - years ago.
Also being finally diagnosed as autistic last year made me re-evaluate and step back a lot.
So, what are you now going to do to tackle your own obnoxioosness?
-
I could live comfortably without talking to you, your leader and the troll. It seems however that you, your leader and the troll can't live without me.
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
Debating politics, ha ha, like you do (not).
Your posts are usually to offer abuse to posters not on your team.
Your hero has gone on record as not being a fan of the countries pensioners and you are even copying him on that now as several of your recent posts indicate.
And you have the temerity to talk about brown nosing.
Do us all a favour and take another three year sabbatical.
Oh Graham.
You are funny.
All this talk of of hereos or like BB disciples. Its like you need attention. I pity you.Bally called you out for what you are a few years back. Don't forget to clean those tonsils on your way up or down sunshine.
-
I could live comfortably without talking to you, your leader and the troll. It seems however that you, your leader and the troll can't live without me.
Can't live without you?
go and f**k yourself.
Still waiting to find out how you're going to tackle your own personality disorder..!
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR PARTY.
Vote Labour, the party for nice people!!
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR PARTY.
Vote Labour, the party for nice people!!
this is much better than most of your other posts bb
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE BENTLEY BULLET PARTY.
go and f**k yourself.
Vote Bentley Bullet, the party for people who don't even pretend to be nice!
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
Debating politics, ha ha, like you do (not).
Your posts are usually to offer abuse to posters not on your team.
Your hero has gone on record as not being a fan of the countries pensioners and you are even copying him on that now as several of your recent posts indicate.
And you have the temerity to talk about brown nosing.
Do us all a favour and take another three year sabbatical.
Oh Graham.
You are funny.
All this talk of of hereos or like BB disciples. Its like you need attention. I pity you.Bally called you out for what you are a few years back. Don't forget to clean those tonsils on your way up or down sunshine.
For someone who claims to know so much, you obviously don’t know that Bally and myself are very good friends.
In fact, most people on here post information about themselves over time and so it would be quite easy for a weirdo to put it together, collate the info and then pretend they know who they are.
You even pretended to know BB personally.
I note that you don’t deny coming on here to abuse people who don’t fly the Labour flag.
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE BENTLEY BULLET PARTY.
go and f**k yourself.
Vote Bentley Bullet, the party for people who don't even pretend to be nice!
If you asked me to f**k you sideways I'd tell you to go f**k yersen 'en'all.
-
Some people need to shut the laptop down and get a hobby.
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
Debating politics, ha ha, like you do (not).
Your posts are usually to offer abuse to posters not on your team.
Your hero has gone on record as not being a fan of the countries pensioners and you are even copying him on that now as several of your recent posts indicate.
And you have the temerity to talk about brown nosing.
Do us all a favour and take another three year sabbatical.
Oh Graham.
You are funny.
All this talk of of hereos or like BB disciples. Its like you need attention. I pity you.Bally called you out for what you are a few years back. Don't forget to clean those tonsils on your way up or down sunshine.
For someone who claims to know so much, you obviously don’t know that Bally and myself are very good friends.
In fact, most people on here post information about themselves over time and so it would be quite easy for a weirdo to put it together, collate the info and then pretend they know who they are.
You even pretended to know BB personally.
I note that you don’t deny coming on here to abuse people who don’t fly the Labour flag.
The troll doesn't know me personally, otherwise he'd show a bit more respect.
-
Ha ha, he does have a peculiar fixation on weird stuff doesn’t he BB.
STILL trolling us too.
Oh, and defending his hero.
Who am I defending? Don't talk boll#x, try to change the habit of a lifetime.
You defend the other blue rinse to a ridiculous extent. Your tongue is so far up there it's tickling his tonsils.
Try debating politics and not sniping and chucking grenades. Or,act your age.
Debating politics, ha ha, like you do (not).
Your posts are usually to offer abuse to posters not on your team.
Your hero has gone on record as not being a fan of the countries pensioners and you are even copying him on that now as several of your recent posts indicate.
And you have the temerity to talk about brown nosing.
Do us all a favour and take another three year sabbatical.
Oh Graham.
You are funny.
All this talk of of hereos or like BB disciples. Its like you need attention. I pity you.Bally called you out for what you are a few years back. Don't forget to clean those tonsils on your way up or down sunshine.
It's very boring to have to point this out to Hound YET again, but I don't have anything against pensioners. Some of the finest people I know are pensioners and I intend to become one of them myself before long.
My issue is with a certain strand of pensioner who refuse to acknowledge that they have been broadly protected against the economic carnage wreaked by a party that they disproportionately support, while younger generations are taking the hit.
I've pointed this out many times, but Hound insists on peddling this lie. Which is one reason that I've got him on Ignore, because it is pointless trying to talk rationally with him.
-
“Certain strand of pensioner”.
I am really wanting to know who or what that relates to please Billy.
-
BST's claim that he doesn't have anything against pensioners and some of the finest people he knows are pensioners sounds quite a lot like a racist saying some of his best mates are black.
... especially with his track record on this forum.
-
Really trying hard to raise the standard BB. Well done. At least you're not telling me to f**k myself or coming out with that truly weird obsession about cliques and leaders, so, baby steps, eh?
Go to bed and stop making such a bloody fool of yourself.
-
“Certain strand of pensioner”.
I am really wanting to know who or what that relates to please Billy.
I think I might have cracked the code Hound. Maybe the "certain strand of pensioner" means the financially successful ones?
-
Really trying hard to raise the standard BB. Well done. At least you're not telling me to f**k myself or coming out with that truly weird obsession about cliques and leaders, so, baby steps, eh?
Go to bed and stop making such a bloody fool of yourself.
You're a fake BST. You WILL be found out, trust me.
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE BENTLEY BULLET PARTY.
go and f**k yourself.
Vote Bentley Bullet, the party for people who don't even pretend to be nice!
If you asked me to f**k you sideways I'd tell you to go f**k yersen 'en'all.
Looks like hound is deleting anything sensible you may have ever said bb
-
THIS IS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST ON BEHALF OF THE BENTLEY BULLET PARTY.
go and f**k yourself.
Vote Bentley Bullet, the party for people who don't even pretend to be nice!
If you asked me to f**k you sideways I'd tell you to go f**k yersen 'en'all.
Looks like hound is deleting anything sensible you may have ever said bb
Syd, what am I supposed to have deleted then.
-
It's a bugger when someone won't tell you what they're accusing you of, ain't it hound?
-
I just read the posts further up this thread about Brianna Ghey's mother and what happened at PMQ's yesterday.
In response, I was going to post that if ONE thing could change for the better in our current politics, it would be to change PMQ's into a serious question and answer session between the PM and the leader of the opposition, instead of the childish muck-throwing and cheap insults which currently pervade.
Both parties have in the past stated their intentions to calm down the rhetoric during PMQ's and make it what it should be - a serious exchange between senior politicians.
And then I read the rest of the posts on this thread.
Oh dear.
-
The writing is on the wall for the Government and they know it. The fact that so many of their MP's are walking away before they're pushed must bring that home. So many of the Cabinet seem out of their depth that it's untrue. Anyone see the Health Secretary on telly this week? It was like some sort of satire.
I have friends who are ardent Conservatives that are absolutely dismayed with what their party has turned into. One recently told me that they're party has changed from one that Conserves to one that Asset sells! Seems like a fair description. These are the people who I do feel sorry for, despite our opposing political views we both want what's best for the country, it's just how that's delivered where we differ. Fair enough.
They're also likely to be politically 'homeless' after the election too. They've both left the party and whilst one is seriously considering the idea of voting Labour, the other can't bring herself to do it!!
-
Hey BB, Sunak just joked in parliament about Starmer not knowing what a woman is with Brianna Ghey's mother in the gallery. Come on, where's your alternative facts on this one?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-trans-joke-brianna-ghey-mum-b2492095.html
The labour in house magazine is now reporting that Brianna Ghey's mother was not actually in the gallery when the statement was made, she apparently arrived late and did not hear the exchange first hand.
Starmer definitely said that the mother was in the chamber.
So he either doesn’t know who is in the chamber or he has lied to get a brownie point.
I am beginning to wonder whether I should vote for him or not.
She was supposed to have been in the chamber, and Sunak et al knew that, but she arrived late. Had she been on time she would have heard it first hand. Do you expect Starmer to do a head count to see who is in the chamber and who is not before saying something?
You really do take the biscuit with your unreasoned arguments.
-
Really trying hard to raise the standard BB. Well done. At least you're not telling me to f**k myself or coming out with that truly weird obsession about cliques and leaders, so, baby steps, eh?
Go to bed and stop making such a bloody fool of yourself.
You're a fake BST. You WILL be found out, trust me.
And with that, I'm finally doing what I should have done years ago and putting you on Ignore.
-
https://youtu.be/IUZEtVbJT5c?si=5quvyTX8rWE1yBg1&t=12
-
That ignore list is a medal of honour for having common sense.
-
This thread is sadly indicative of the tribalist attitude and lack of nuance permeating society. If you're not in fabvour of X then you must be in favour of Y. You're speaking out against something, why aren't you speaking out against another? It's frustrating and infuriating.
I share Billy's contempt for the wilful mismanagement of the economy to benefit the few, not the many and the way the Conservative party have swung drastically to the right, shouting "look over here at the brown people on boats" while they dip into the working people's back pockets to feather then nests of their mates. And more so how so many hard-working lower or mid income people have lapped it up. The politics of hate and division backed up by a few "jam tomorrow" promises that are never kept.
I genuinely don't feel there's a party that fully represents my broadly centrist views but the nearest one is the Lib Dems of which I'm a member. If I had a lot more time on my hands I'd be more actively involved in trying to influence policy but pretty much the only recreational activity I have time for at the moment is following a godawful fourth division football team.
I'll be voting tactically in the next election to support whichever candidate to the left of the now almost comically right wing Tory party has the best chance of winning. Not because I hate the Conservative Party per-se but because I am appalled at what it has become and how it has utterly failed the nation whilst a select few have had their noses firmly in the trough.
-
Thank goodness for some basic reasoned common sense. With you all the way, Mike_F
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
The link was about populism with examples of why and how it fails.
But if you're on about Germans protesting against the far right it was on all the UK news networks the other day and it's also readily available on the Net. For example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PjOc0F-n4w
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
The link was about populism with examples of why and how it fails.
But if you're on about Germans protesting against the far right it was on all the UK news networks the other day and it's also readily available on the Net. For example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PjOc0F-n4w
So you think a bunch of sooty students and Gays are voicing the concerns of German society as whole, the childish remark on the cardboard placard says it all!
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
The link was about populism with examples of why and how it fails.
But if you're on about Germans protesting against the far right it was on all the UK news networks the other day and it's also readily available on the Net. For example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PjOc0F-n4w
So you think a bunch of sooty students and Gays are voicing the concerns of German society as whole, the childish remark on the cardboard placard says it all!
So Walter, what do you know about how the Germans think?
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
The link was about populism with examples of why and how it fails.
But if you're on about Germans protesting against the far right it was on all the UK news networks the other day and it's also readily available on the Net. For example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PjOc0F-n4w
So you think a bunch of sooty students and Gays are voicing the concerns of German society as whole, the childish remark on the cardboard placard says it all!
So Walter, what do you know about how the Germans think?
I think you are childish for a start!
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/03/germany-shifts-to-the-right-with-anti-immigration-afd-ahead-in-polls.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS90uDEbJDI
-
Reply to Mike_F #87
Agree Mike . I think Politics and Politicians are now totally exposed
The system / the MPs etc are not fitting the definition of Democratic any more , which is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
We desperately need PR to make each vote fairer , not FPTP , and then that will boost the number of Seats won by Green Party Lib Dems so if 20 % of voters vote Green Party across the UK they get 20% of the Seats
That may encourage the missing 13 million people to Vote when they don't have the excuse " it won't make a difference how I vote" and it might just end extremism which we have seen from Govts of all colours in the past
However I'm sure Labour won't "go for it " if they get a Majority outright because they will want their turn to bat
They should put the Country first and give the people what they actually do want. 66% is my estimation but as usual I will check to try to prove that so don't slag me for that yet
-
Highest I've found just over 50% with just 44% wanting to retain FPTP.
64% of Labour traditional voters votes in favour of PR of some sort
This is the opening of one PR Proposal by a County Council
Motion on proportional representation
In Europe, only the UK and Belarus still use the archaic single-round First past
the post (FPTP) for general elections. England also uses it for local elections.
Internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect the
parliaments of more than 80 countries. These countries tend to be more
representative, more inclusive and greener.
PR ensures all votes count, have equal value and that seats won, match votes
cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and
characteristics of both local communities and of the nation.
-
Have to agree, PR is appears to be the only way the UK will get the long term stabilisation so badly needed.
-
The key for a Tory Chancellor is to create conditions such as recession and inflation to enable the rich to buy cheap then sell at a profit. This has always been the case. Leaving or being thrown out after creating a catastrophe for the many, and a bumper harvest for the few, is simply part of the game.
-
This thread is sadly indicative of the tribalist attitude and lack of nuance permeating society. If you're not in fabvour of X then you must be in favour of Y. You're speaking out against something, why aren't you speaking out against another? It's frustrating and infuriating.
I share Billy's contempt for the wilful mismanagement of the economy to benefit the few, not the many and the way the Conservative party have swung drastically to the right, shouting "look over here at the brown people on boats" while they dip into the working people's back pockets to feather then nests of their mates. And more so how so many hard-working lower or mid income people have lapped it up. The politics of hate and division backed up by a few "jam tomorrow" promises that are never kept.
I genuinely don't feel there's a party that fully represents my broadly centrist views but the nearest one is the Lib Dems of which I'm a member. If I had a lot more time on my hands I'd be more actively involved in trying to influence policy but pretty much the only recreational activity I have time for at the moment is following a godawful fourth division football team.
I'll be voting tactically in the next election to support whichever candidate to the left of the now almost comically right wing Tory party has the best chance of winning. Not because I hate the Conservative Party per-se but because I am appalled at what it has become and how it has utterly failed the nation whilst a select few have had their noses firmly in the trough.
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
-
The key for a Tory Chancellor is to create conditions such as recession and inflation to enable the rich to buy cheap then sell at a profit. This has always been the case. Leaving or being thrown out after creating a catastrophe for the many, and a bumper harvest for the few, is simply part of the game.
That sounds good, but businesses make more money when the economy is stable. not unstable, so a government deliberately creating instability in order to make businesspeople vote for them doesn't make sense.
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
-
Hey Steve, get up, this is a good read.
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
For Christ's sake, don't criticise pensioners in here!
As for Clegg, he wasn't naive. He was simply unprincipled. He campaigned on being more economically left wing than Labour, then when the chance of a seat at the top table was offered, he enabled the most right wing batshit economics experiment since the 1930s. He justified that (and I shit you not) by saying he (him personally) had "changed his mind" in the last couple of days before the 2010 Election.
He now plays the role of Facebook's social conscience,while it's used to undermine democracies and enable genocide.
In a strong field, he's the third biggest Kitson in our politics over the past 20 years, behind Farage and Johnson.
-
Reform? The seriously ultra right far right wing party? If they take away Labour's traditional support then the country is well and truly f*%ked! The rise of the ultra right and populism is a serious risk to the country as a whole.
Even the Germans see it as a serious risk and are protesting about it.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism
Where is the evidence to supply your remark the link you posted doesn’t?
The link was about populism with examples of why and how it fails.
But if you're on about Germans protesting against the far right it was on all the UK news networks the other day and it's also readily available on the Net. For example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PjOc0F-n4w
So you think a bunch of sooty students and Gays are voicing the concerns of German society as whole, the childish remark on the cardboard placard says it all!
So Walter, what do you know about how the Germans think?
I think you are childish for a start!
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/03/germany-shifts-to-the-right-with-anti-immigration-afd-ahead-in-polls.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS90uDEbJDI
And that is why people in Germany are protesting as they, quite rightly, see the dangers posed by the far right and their populist propaganda.
Given the number in the link you posted it would seem that over 75% of Germans don't support the far right!
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
For Christ's sake, don't criticise pensioners in here!
As for Clegg, he wasn't naive. He was simply unprincipled. He campaigned on being more economically left wing than Labour, then when the chance of a seat at the top table was offered, he enabled the most right wing batshit economics experiment since the 1930s. He justified that (and I shit you not) by saying he (him personally) had "changed his mind" in the last couple of days before the 2010 Election.
He now plays the role of Facebook's social conscience,while it's used to undermine democracies and enable genocide.
In a strong field, he's the third biggest Kitson in our politics over the past 20 years, behind Farage and Johnson.
In my experience a high percentage of 50-70 years old women are not pensioners.
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
For Christ's sake, don't criticise pensioners in here!
As for Clegg, he wasn't naive. He was simply unprincipled. He campaigned on being more economically left wing than Labour, then when the chance of a seat at the top table was offered, he enabled the most right wing batshit economics experiment since the 1930s. He justified that (and I shit you not) by saying he (him personally) had "changed his mind" in the last couple of days before the 2010 Election.
He now plays the role of Facebook's social conscience,while it's used to undermine democracies and enable genocide.
In a strong field, he's the third biggest Kitson in our politics over the past 20 years, behind Farage and Johnson.
What, even behind the bloke who sent us to war with Iraq, resulting in over 300,000 deaths?
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
Confirmed
........... ''Council leaders in England have criticised Rishi Sunak for demanding that local authorities show “restraint” in putting up council tax bills, saying the government is to blame for underfunding ...........
........ He singled out for criticism those councils in England that are requesting permission to raise council tax by more than 5% as they look to balance their budgets amid a national crisis in local authority funding.
Sunak’s comments came despite the government this week granting permission to a number of councils to raise taxes by more than the 5% cap, including Thurrock, Woking, Slough and Birmingham. Ministers refused to allow Somerset to do the same, however, as council leaders there try to close a £100m budget deficit .......
............. The Guardian also revealed last month that officials in Michael Gove’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities had told councils they were expected to raise council tax by the maximum 4.99% in April, with some Tory officials concerned this could counteract the effect of national tax cuts promised in next month’s budget'' ..........
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/09/local-authority-leaders-criticise-sunaks-demand-for-restrained-council-tax-rises
-
Some good points in there, Mike. However, have you forgotten the treachery of the Lib Dems in 2010, when they got into bed with the Tories in return for jobs for the boys in the Cabinet?
It was a truly horrible spectacle of snake oil salesmanship, and lost the Lib Dems countless seats and supporters.
I was waiting for a response like this, Steve. I'd like to think serious lessons have been learned and the party has moved on (after all, both Labour and the Tories are much further to the right than they were then). That said, the biggest sin of the Clegg coalition IMHO was political naivety. The Conservatives are experts at setting others up to fail and they did a great job of disenfranchising floating LD voters for a generation.
Going into coalition, the LDs got numerous manifesto policies agreed on the condition that they capitulated on one policy. What Clegg was too blinded by ego to realise or consider was that the one policy they had to give up was the only one that mattered to a large swathe of their members and voters. While the changes to liberty on the roll-back of national ID cards, support for poorer children in education and the like all went under the radar, the failure of the pledge to end tuition fees is the only thing that Clegg and his cohort will be remembered for.
Going off on a related tangent, see also how the Conservatives set up Labour councils to fail. They deliberately and knowingly made the biggest "austerity" cuts in poorer areas where Labour or No Overall Control councils operated so that people would blame the incumbent councils' parties for failing them. All the while, they (Cons) have been playing on the fears of working class people in demonising "the other" whether that's brown people, European politicians or international students. I 'll repeat my earlier assertion that sadly it's working. I see comments all the time about how the Labour council is failing Doncaster but very rarely an acknowledgement that the perceived failings are due to it having one hand tied behind its back and having its wallet pilfered by the Conservative central government.
Too many people (including in my experience a high percentage of 50-70 year old age women, my own mother and mother-in-law included) fell for the "cuddly buffoon" image that was a front for the devious, Machiavellian workings of the current Conservative party.
For Christ's sake, don't criticise pensioners in here!
As for Clegg, he wasn't naive. He was simply unprincipled. He campaigned on being more economically left wing than Labour, then when the chance of a seat at the top table was offered, he enabled the most right wing batshit economics experiment since the 1930s. He justified that (and I shit you not) by saying he (him personally) had "changed his mind" in the last couple of days before the 2010 Election.
He now plays the role of Facebook's social conscience,while it's used to undermine democracies and enable genocide.
In a strong field, he's the third biggest Kitson in our politics over the past 20 years, behind Farage and Johnson.
As my lovely Mother in law who never really got involvrd in politics referred to him
Two faced Clegg