Not The Politics Thread.

[Fox in the North]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

No, it absolutely does not and I am not trying to excuse this Government as thats not possible, but we should regard all Governments, past, present and future with an even hand.

 

If Blair had a statue I would tear it down   (Next to Johnsons)

But surely if the hand dealt in the past was too weak then that must be corrected? Irrelevant of politics the current government has set a whopping precedence for either sheer ignorance/incompetence at an absurd rate.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Fox in the North said:

But surely if the hand dealt in the past was too weak then that must be corrected? Irrelevant of politics the current government has set a whopping precedence for either sheer ignorance/incompetence at an absurd rate.

Indeed, those deceased are clearly beyond reach, and perhaps vilifcation (Judging historical figures by todays ethical standings is troubling, but that does not mean it cannot be educational) , but those who could still be held accountable should, especially those who personally profited from their misdemeanours whilst in power

[urban.spaceman]

 

 

[weller54]

9 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Vile so called Newspaper!!

Anyone or any media supporting the cretin is as bad as he is!

Mind you, in some ways I want him to stay so he can continue to damage the Tories beyond repair!!!

 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Daily Heil in jingoistic tunnel-vision-because-there's-a-foreigner-boogeyman-about shocker.

[StanSP]

 

 

[Fazzer 7]

8 hours ago, Lionator said:

A sickening thought. 
 

also it’s best for Labour long term that Johnson is in charge as he is for all intents and purposes a busted flush now. I think they know he’s not going to resign.

Whilst not condoning what Johnson & co did regarding breaking the lockdown laws, which incidentally I never supported. I genuinely would like to know why Labour supporters/socialists believe the Country would be better served by a labour government.

 

So far as I can see, they would simply borrow even more money increasing National debt at a time when interest rates are likely to rise still further. Hundreds of billions were spent during the pandemic, borrowing that money ultimately has to be paid for. They would Impose windfall taxes on oil and gas producers, who would then either pass it on to the end user or shelve investment at a time when it's needed, whether the climate fanatics want it or not. Restore an open door immigration policy putting still more strain on services like the NHS and education. Has there ever been a Labour government who've left the economy in a better state than which they inherited? Blair and Brown didn't!

 

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps there isn't one but I do not see Labour doing any better, not with the economy anyhow.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

Is the stupid **** still in the highest office in the land? 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whilst not condoning what Johnson & co did regarding breaking the lockdown laws, which incidentally I never supported. I genuinely would like to know why Labour supporters/socialists believe the Country would be better served by a labour government.

 

So far as I can see, they would simply borrow even more money increasing National debt at a time when interest rates are likely to rise still further. Hundreds of billions were spent during the pandemic, borrowing that money ultimately has to be paid for. They would Impose windfall taxes on oil and gas producers, who would then either pass it on to the end user or shelve investment at a time when it's needed, whether the climate fanatics want it or not. Restore an open door immigration policy putting still more strain on services like the NHS and education. Has there ever been a Labour government who've left the economy in a better state than which they inherited? Blair and Brown didn't!

 

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps there isn't one but I do not see Labour doing any better, not with the economy anyhow.

...I would be interested in knowing why such investment in fossil fuels is needed given the current environmental position backed by scientific consensus, "climate fanatics" be damned.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Is the stupid **** still in the highest office in the land? 

She is 95 ffs, give her a break  

[Voll Blau]

12 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whilst not condoning what Johnson & co did regarding breaking the lockdown laws, which incidentally I never supported. I genuinely would like to know why Labour supporters/socialists believe the Country would be better served by a labour government.

 

So far as I can see, they would simply borrow even more money increasing National debt at a time when interest rates are likely to rise still further. Hundreds of billions were spent during the pandemic, borrowing that money ultimately has to be paid for. They would Impose windfall taxes on oil and gas producers, who would then either pass it on to the end user or shelve investment at a time when it's needed, whether the climate fanatics want it or not. Restore an open door immigration policy putting still more strain on services like the NHS and education. Has there ever been a Labour government who've left the economy in a better state than which they inherited? Blair and Brown didn't!

 

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps there isn't one but I do not see Labour doing any better, not with the economy anyhow.

 

Because they wouldn't be constantly lying to the public and breaking the law. Know why? Because the public and media wouldn't allow them to. And if they did, they'd be out on their arse - and rightly so.

 

If anyone seriously still thinks this lot in charge now are the best we can hope for because "oooooh, b-b-but what if Labour..." then we might as well fvck ourselves all off Westminster Bridge because this country and its people are done.

[Fazzer 7]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

...I would be interested in knowing why such investment in fossil fuels is needed given the current environmental position backed by scientific consensus, "climate fanatics" be damned.

It will take decades to switch reliance on fossil fuels off. What do we do in the interim?Buy Putins gas and oil? The type of people that are blockading oil refineries and slashing tanker tyres are in my view fanatics and criminals. 

[foxes1988]

12 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

It will take decades to switch reliance on fossil fuels off. What do we do in the interim?Buy Putins gas and oil? The type of people that are blockading oil refineries and slashing tanker tyres are in my view fanatics and criminals. 

I think the 'fanatics and a criminals' are only going to increase over time.  As annoyed as many are with activists now just wait. The climate activists protests I think are only going to get more frequent and more extreme.

Edited 13 April 2022 by foxes1988

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

It will take decades to switch reliance on fossil fuels off. What do we do in the interim?Buy Putins gas and oil? The type of people that are blockading oil refineries and slashing tanker tyres are in my view fanatics and criminals. 

I certainly hope that it does not, because we don't have that kind of time. Not without leaving hundreds of millions of people hungry, thirsty and migrating on account of increased global temperatures, anyway.

 

The investment should be in making the switch to renewables and Gen III/IV fission as expeditiously as possible, while maintaining existing fossil fuel infrastructure and drawing it down gradually. I can't see where additional investment on the latter is needed there.

 

Of course, if one wants to invest in continuing to use fossil fuels and then treat the countless millions of climate refugees with the usual attitude advocates of such things do (even though their plight would be at least in part the responsibility of those who decided to keep the ball rolling), then fair play - I'm just not really sure that's an acceptable pathway except to the most ardent social Darwinist.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, foxes1988 said:

I think the 'fanatics and a criminals' are only going to increase over time.  As annoyed as many are now just wait. The climate activists protests I think are going to get more frequent and more extreme.

I think that's just half of the story.

 

As they become more vociferous, pushback against them likely will. And the further along we go and the more desperate the situation becomes, the more likely things will simply spiral out of control.

 

This, of course, can all be avoided by actually implementing the necessary changes, something this Tory government actually seems to take vaguely seriously given the talk at COP26, but we'll see if deeds match words.

[Facecloth]

41 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whilst not condoning what Johnson & co did regarding breaking the lockdown laws, which incidentally I never supported. I genuinely would like to know why Labour supporters/socialists believe the Country would be better served by a labour government.

 

So far as I can see, they would simply borrow even more money increasing National debt at a time when interest rates are likely to rise still further. Hundreds of billions were spent during the pandemic, borrowing that money ultimately has to be paid for. They would Impose windfall taxes on oil and gas producers, who would then either pass it on to the end user or shelve investment at a time when it's needed, whether the climate fanatics want it or not. Restore an open door immigration policy putting still more strain on services like the NHS and education. Has there ever been a Labour government who've left the economy in a better state than which they inherited? Blair and Brown didn't!

 

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps there isn't one but I do not see Labour doing any better, not with the economy anyhow.

Would this be the national debt that is higher now in both terms of percentage of GDP and in terms of monetary value than it ever was under labour, and was the case before the pandemic. In fact it has risen every year under the Tories despite nearly a decade of pre pandemic austerity. Remind me again which party can't look after the economy.

 

[Fazzer 7]

16 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

I think the 'fanatics and a criminals' are only going to increase over time.  As annoyed as many are with activists now just wait. The climate activists protests I think are only going to get more frequent and more extreme.

Sadly I agree

[pSinatra]

 

Thank fvck she used the sad emoji - or this could have come across as deeply offensive

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Fazzer 7 said:

Whilst not condoning what Johnson & co did regarding breaking the lockdown laws, which incidentally I never supported. I genuinely would like to know why Labour supporters/socialists believe the Country would be better served by a labour government.

 

So far as I can see, they would simply borrow even more money increasing National debt at a time when interest rates are likely to rise still further. Hundreds of billions were spent during the pandemic, borrowing that money ultimately has to be paid for. They would Impose windfall taxes on oil and gas producers, who would then either pass it on to the end user or shelve investment at a time when it's needed, whether the climate fanatics want it or not. Restore an open door immigration policy putting still more strain on services like the NHS and education. Has there ever been a Labour government who've left the economy in a better state than which they inherited? Blair and Brown didn't!

 

I don't know what the answer is, perhaps there isn't one but I do not see Labour doing any better, not with the economy anyhow.

i'll take this one lads....

 

https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368

 

Also, you can't on the one hand excuse the current government on economic performance based on a global crisis (covid) and then complain about the same for new labour, when they also had a global crisis (the collapse of the American investment banks) 

 

The other thing I will say, is that i preferred our country under labour. Admittedly, I was only 28 when they were ousted, but society felt fairer. we looked after the old the infirm and in need more. 

 

hospital waiting times were lower. 

 

it felt like lots of people gained more equally. 

 

My Father In Law is in his mid 70's and has to rely on purely the state pension for his income.  Talking to him last night, he is genuinely having to decide between eating and heating.  That can't be right in a country like ours can it? 

 

We have a government which decided to break the triple lock for pensions for this year, putting some pensioners into poverty whilst utilising the same measure to increase student loan interest rates to 12%. 

 

This Government are a disgrace in a modern Society. I absolutely abhor everything they stand for. 

Edited 13 April 2022 by Greg2607

[Fazzer 7]

@facecloth. Looking at the Debt v GDP graph. There was a huge rise between 1997- 2010! That was Gordon Browns legacy.

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said:

@facecloth. Looking at the Debt v GDP graph. There was a huge rise between 1997- 2010! That was Gordon Browns legacy.

Erm it drops after 1997. 2008 was the global financial crisis.

 

Facts are it dropped to its lowest level in that time under labour, its risen to its highest under the Tories. Whoever was left with whatever, Labour brought it down, the tories pushed it up. The tories were in power a decade prior to the pandemic, plenty of time to bring it down, fact is it carried on going up.

[LiberalFox]

9 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

What happened to her? Wouldn't mind her leading the country if it had to be a Tory.

[Sampson]

The economy and quality of life for most people certainly did improve under Blair and Brown.
 

The economy collapsed at the end due to the external worldwide financial crisis and you can’t defend the Tories leaving the economy in a much worse place now by saying it’s down to external factors like Brexit and covid and then not give Blair and Brown the same pass.

 

National debt is far higher now than it ever was under Blair and Brown despite the massive pull back in spending on the NHS, education and the emergency services.

[urban.spaceman]

23 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

What happened to her? Wouldn't mind her leading the country if it had to be a Tory.

Received a life peerage and now sits in the HOL

[Lionator]

18 minutes ago, Sampson said:

The economy and quality of life for most people certainly did improve under Blair and Brown.
 

The economy collapsed at the end due to the external worldwide financial crisis and you can’t defend the Tories leaving the economy in a much worse place now by saying it’s down to external factors like Brexit and covid and then not give Blair and Brown the same pass.

 

National debt is far higher now than it ever was under Blair and Brown despite the massive pull back in spending on the NHS, education and the emergency services.

Literally everything was better under the Labour government, the NHS, crime levels, education, housing market, suicide rates, poverty.