Rats/Ship

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

"No Labour Chancellor in the last 50 years has made a mistake anywhere remotely as bad as those."

There's only been three!

[Sprotyrover]

"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!

[danumdon]

"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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Come on lads. Get it all out. All that shite deep down in your lungs. Big deep breath and cough it all up.

[Bentley Bullet]

"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.

[danumdon]

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"

[BillyStubbsTears]

"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.

[drfchound]

"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.

[Donnywolf]

"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

[Bentley Bullet]

"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!

[BillyStubbsTears]

"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.

[Bentley Bullet]

What evidence have I ignored, silly Billy?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[Filo]

"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

[SydneyRover]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

"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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[SydneyRover]

Let's be honest here though bb, he didn't really help his own cause, did he? Churchillian, absolutely not.

[drfchound]

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

[SydneyRover]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

[Not Now Kato]

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?

[Bentley Bullet]

You support the insupportable? Really? Why?

[Not Now Kato]

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?

[selby]

  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.

[Not Now Kato]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.