Jump to content

Politics shit innit


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Skamp said:

It'll keep the little bastards out of trouble and get some taxes in to pay for Starmer and Raynor's uncosted giveaway promises.

Which uncosted giveaway promises are you referring to Skamp?  Cos I'll tell you something, I'd actually quite like Labour to promise something a bit different rather than hear Rachel Reeves talk like a Tory promising more years of austerity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Which uncosted giveaway promises are you referring to Skamp?  Cos I'll tell you something, I'd actually quite like Labour to promise something a bit different rather than hear Rachel Reeves talk like a Tory promising more years of austerity. 

Well let's start with the extra £1.5bn to the NHS.  Funding? erm, tax avoidance and other loopholes.  No measure of how much tax avoidance/ loopholes he's on about he's targeting other than £1.5bn promised spend.

I agree with you about Reeves.  She talks a good game (once you get passed the monotone voice she has) but there's no substance to anything she says.  No tax cuts she's said - she actually gets it abut the economy and so what they're going to do to fund all the promises:

1. an extra 1.5m houses in the next 5 years springs to mind (Calculated by D Abbott I guess as 1.5m/5 = 300,000 per annum at (say 48 weeks x 6 days) =1,041 new houses every day for the next 5 years)

2. The above £1.5bn (they like they're 1.5s don't they?) 

Tell you what they'll do, as always they'll raid the aspiring people and put VAT on private school fees (Ms Abbott must be so pleases she avoided this tax hike, mind you she's been cast aside now as being a bit dangerous to the image) and you watch them do a Gordon Brown with our pensions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other news, was it wrong to laugh out loud when Sadiq Khan moaned that the Tories haven't done enough to tackle knife crime yet he, and Labour, continue to oppose Stop and search.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Skamp said:

Well let's start with the extra £1.5bn to the NHS.  Funding? erm, tax avoidance and other loopholes.  No measure of how much tax avoidance/ loopholes he's on about he's targeting other than £1.5bn promised spend.

I agree with you about Reeves.  She talks a good game (once you get passed the monotone voice she has) but there's no substance to anything she says.  No tax cuts she's said - she actually gets it abut the economy and so what they're going to do to fund all the promises:

1. an extra 1.5m houses in the next 5 years springs to mind (Calculated by D Abbott I guess as 1.5m/5 = 300,000 per annum at (say 48 weeks x 6 days) =1,041 new houses every day for the next 5 years)

2. The above £1.5bn (they like they're 1.5s don't they?) 

Tell you what they'll do, as always they'll raid the aspiring people and put VAT on private school fees (Ms Abbott must be so pleases she avoided this tax hike, mind you she's been cast aside now as being a bit dangerous to the image) and you watch them do a Gordon Brown with our pensions.

 

So you're using the "tax avoidance loophole" payment plan that the Tories have so far attributed to 2 fanciful policies.  Those ones?

What's wrong with VAT on private schools?  Don't have kids if you can't afford them...I'm sure i've heard that line before.

Everything else you've written is just assumption, no facts there.  You could wait for the manifestos and have a read of them, although tbf this Govt passes off legislation that they've never tested in a manifesto as "the will of the people" so maybe not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

People often forget about Austerity, and why it  was important.

Also what labours plan was...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/mar/25/alistair-darling-cut-deeper-margaret-thatcher

It was a political choice and a mechanism to destroy public services, as has now become abundantly clear.

The only thing that frustrated Osborne was that he couldn't go further and faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

What's wrong with VAT on private schools?

And who do you think will be affected? The likes of Rees-Mogg? Of Course not.  It'll be the likes of the millions of aspiring parents (like Abbott) that want the best for their kids.  Still, let's price them out and let the parents have to put them into the underused classes at secondary school.  Oh, hang on a minute.

I'll make another "assumption" shall I?  It'll cost the country more in overcrowded classes and new school building requirements than 20% of vat will ever raise.

It's not a way of generating increased revenue, it's purely the politics of envy that eats away at the heart of the Labour party.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Skamp said:

And who do you think will be affected? The likes of Rees-Mogg? Of Course not.  It'll be the likes of the millions of aspiring parents (like Abbott) that want the best for their kids.  Still, let's price them out and let the parents have to put them into the underused classes at secondary school.  Oh, hang on a minute.

I'll make another "assumption" shall I?  It'll cost the country more in overcrowded classes and new school building requirements than 20% of vat will ever raise.

It's not a way of generating increased revenue, it's purely the politics of envy that eats away at the heart of the Labour party.

 

 

Do you think the answer might be to properly fund state schools? And who hasn't been funding state education for the last 14 years?

And before you say "no money" - Was it £9bn in Covid fraud money that Sunak "wrote off"?  How much did the VIP lanes generate for pub landlords and Tory donors.

The money is always there for the things that Govt really wants to spend money on and it's never there for the things that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

It was a political choice and a mechanism to destroy public services, as has now become abundantly clear.

The only thing that frustrated Osborne was that he couldn't go further and faster.

Did you read what Alistair Darling wanted to do?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Did you read what Alistair Darling wanted to do?

 

I remember it - the golden period where Labour thought they had to be Tories, thank God we'll never see that again eh?  It doesn't change anything with regards Austerity though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Do you think the answer might be to properly fund state schools?

Are you actually having a laugh.

Who phased out grammar schools?

Who then explicitly banned grammar schools?

Who then created accadamies?

Who then put all the schools into debt by acting like a kid in a sweet shop when he got his grubby hands on the PFI principle?

 

This is where all the money made available to fund schools has gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Skamp said:

Are you actually having a laugh.

Who phased out grammar schools?

Who then explicitly banned grammar schools?

Who then created accadamies?

Who then put all the schools into debt by acting like a kid in a sweet shop when he got his grubby hands on the PFI principle?

 

This is where all the money made available to fund schools has gone.

Stop it Skamp 😂

No Govt that's been in power for 14 years gets the right to blame a Govt that came to power in 1997.

14 years...they've had 14 years and they've made it immeasurably worse.

I love your commitment though.

Edited by BraddersTim
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

I remember it - the golden period where Labour thought they had to be Tories, thank God we'll never see that again eh?  It doesn't change anything with regards Austerity though.

Doesn't it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Stop it Skamp 😂

No Govt that's been in power for 14 years gets the right to blame a Govt that came to power in 1997.

14 years...they've had 14 years and they've made it immeasurably worse.

I love your commitment though.

How much more do you want?

is an increase of £7bn in the past 2 years not enough?

 

BTW - this is real money, not the type of money that Starmer is currently chucking about

image.png.a533d0b45ec47db70670bff6c5189126.png

 

 

image.png.9e21c154e9aeb1a60c31eb2fab7fa4e6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

No

OK.

If you look at the data, there was a slight contraction in govt spending 2010-2013 and then it grew year on year until it balloned due to the pandemic.

The previous years,2000-2009 saw remarkable increase in spending due to the  statist polices of Brown which ultimately the country could no longer afford when the global economy retracted in 2007-08.

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/298465/government-spending-uk/

So Austerity was needed after 12 years of flagrant over spending by Labour.

To the extent that Labour recognised it needed to slash public spending to pre 97 levels and promised to cut further than the tories.

The Treasury expected Austerity to create 2 whole parliaments of pain, which it did, and was followed quite quickly by the pandemic which created further massive problems re government spending requirements and the inflationary bubble caused by lack of supply (die to China effectively closing down for two years).

So going back to your original comment, do the facts support it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

OK.

If you look at the data, there was a slight contraction in govt spending 2010-2013 and then it grew year on year until it balloned due to the pandemic.

The previous years,2000-2009 saw remarkable increase in spending due to the  statist polices of Brown which ultimately the country could no longer afford when the global economy retracted in 2007-08.

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/298465/government-spending-uk/

So Austerity was needed after 12 years of flagrant over spending by Labour.

To the extent that Labour recognised it needed to slash public spending to pre 97 levels and promised to cut further than the tories.

The Treasury expected Austerity to create 2 whole parliaments of pain, which it did, and was followed quite quickly by the pandemic which created further massive problems re government spending requirements and the inflationary bubble caused by lack of supply (die to China effectively closing down for two years).

So going back to your original comment, do the facts support it?

 

I'll come back to this, but not tonight because I'm out to play football then out & not tomorrow because it's a crazy day at work and I'm out all day helping a customer. So don't take it as a sign of superiority that I'm deferring a response. There's also the chance the conversation moves on anyway so...we'll see.

But basically it boils to the same, you've got your facts that support your views, I've got mine and neither of us will change the others mind. We've danced this dance before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

But basically it boils to the same, you've got your facts that support your views, I've got mine

But you don't have any facts.

You made comment about why you think the tories/ lib dem coalition and the subsequent tory govt under Cameron instigated Austerity "to destroy public services" and that Osborne would have gone further faster" when during his tenure 2010-2016 he increased public spending year on year.

There's literally Zero fact or data to support this 

Plus the Labour Chancellor recognised the need for Austerity and promised larger cuts than Osborne - so would you say Darling wanted to destroy the public sector 

Edited by Andyben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was out and about yesterday and what intrigues me is how your perception of the UK changes in very small geographical distances. 

My destination was Bracknell, so a fairly non descript new town, but quite well to do as a commuter town and tech industries. 

But it's next door to Ascot, the racecourse I passed prepping for the social season and displays of wealth, the £7m mansions overlooking it. On through Windsor Great Park and its connection to royalty and old money.

Then erm Slough, a whole different urban multicultural world

Back to the wealth of middle England in Farnham Common, Beaconsfield and some of the most exclusive places to live in the UK

I then caught sight of the HS2 works, I have to say for all the controversy attached to it, the infrastructure looks impressive. 

Yet in Wycombe, Aylesbury and Slough there will be areas of poverty and social deprivation. 

The prospective client I met were fairly unassuming people, worked their way from normal upbringing, now have a buy to let portfolio valued at £2.5m, the Thatcherite dream and an IHT angst, but on cancer treatment, their reliance on the NHS for that and what they may need for future social care.

I do mull things over as I drive along (listening to the playlist you recommended Andyben) and it was those contrasts, but equally the UK ain't a bad place really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The LOZoSCURA playlist out of interest.

Any others to recommend @Andyben

I found one woth stuff like Billy Bragg, Rev & the Makers etc but it costs too much and doesn't work despite promises to the contrary 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Andyben said:

I found one woth stuff like Billy Bragg, Rev & the Makers etc but it costs too much and doesn't work despite promises to the contrary 

I can see what you did there

Saying that I quite like The Levellers but politically it's fair to say I am a tad removed from most of their songs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Andyben said:

Don't worry about replying, you can't argue with fact, even if you don't belive it. It doesn't make it less true 

You're about 2 posts away from nastiness so in return I'm going to be very polite.

I'm deliberately not playing this game again, because a) I know how it goes b) my circumstances have changed and I just don't have the time to engage in depth c) it's pointless anyway, nobody changes anybody's mind in these thread.

a) It goes like this - we disagree on a point, you post something reasonably intelligent with carefully selected and verifiable date that backs up your point. You challenge the other party to prove you wrong with sources.  They either ignore you or fall into your trap and respond with links.  You then set about destroying the material based on a) the source, if you don't like it it can't be right b) the material itself - if you disagree you'll send more links to prove your point.  At this point it's all about the "winning" - you want to be seen as bigger/better not to the person but the forum at large.  Fine, but as I've said we've danced this dance before and I'm not playing anymore.  It's bollocks anyway because as a moderately intelligent man you know full well that there's a plethora of material about the socio/economic costs of austerity, the links between it and Cameron's "big society", It's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't and you know that.  There's data that supports both our views and Googling, reading ans selecting would put it on here, I just can't be arsed to do it, which brings me to b) Circumstances - once I had time to pore over OO and argue politics.  Not now, I have a successful company (thank God)  but it's 24/7 and demanding so for months now I post as/when I can be bothered and keep it fairly light.  That's not going to change and I don't have time for much more than that.  In fact typing this, I'm trying to leave the office and there's a list of stuff to finish and a coffee going cold.  c) None of this makes the slightest difference.  Labour will win, Tories are toast, but they'll blame Labour for the shit they've left behind in the hope that in 5 years time it'll stick and they'll get voted back in.  TBF, it's not a bad idea, some people will be blaming Labour 3 days after the election for potholes in the road and sewage in the sea.  This is pretty much a right leaning forum, that's fine by me, I'll post what I can and we'll likely disagree, let's just not turn it either nasty or into a who's got a bigger cock competition...(I have).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BraddersTim said:

Some polls giving Labour 27 point lead...

I don't think the gap will be that wide.

Labour will win, and should do but by default as it's more about the WEFists under Sunak deserving to lose than anything Starmer / Labour has said or done meaning they should win. 

That make sense?

In the  past 24hrs I honestly believe my prediction of a labour minority government will happen. There's not the  ground swell of public support that Blair had from 1995 onwards to create a big majority.

The Left is already beginning to revolt and a few choice independents / Galloway's Workers Party and what appears to be a move from certain Islamic groups to take over the green party in key areas could cost labour more than Reform costs Sunak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

I don't think the gap will be that wide.

Labour will win, and should do but by default as it's more about the WEFists under Sunak deserving to lose than anything Starmer / Labour has said or done meaning they should win. 

That make sense?

In the  past 24hrs I honestly believe my prediction of a labour minority government will happen. There's not the  ground swell of public support that Blair had from 1995 onwards to create a big majority.

The Left is already beginning to revolt and a few choice independents / Galloway's Workers Party and what appears to be a move from certain Islamic groups to take over the green party in key areas could cost labour more than Reform costs Sunak.

I'd prefer a hung parliament tbh, the Liberals/Greens or SNP potentially could make it a better Govt and more centre left policies, rather than Tory Lite which is where Starmer is and Tory Central, where Reeves is.

But Labour will win, don't kid yourself otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BraddersTim said:

I'd prefer a hung parliament tbh, the Liberals/Greens or SNP potentially could make it a better Govt and more centre left policies, rather than Tory Lite which is where Starmer is and Tory Central, where Reeves is.

But Labour will win, don't kid yourself otherwise. 

Eurgh Angela Rayner and Richard Burgon in positions of power......frightening.

 

Mind the other options are hardly appealing either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reesh said:

Eurgh Angela Rayner and Richard Burgon in positions of power......frightening.

 

Mind the other options are hardly appealing either.

I mean if we're going to talk about rank personalities in power....🤯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2024 at 18:48, Andyben said:

appears to be a move from certain Islamic groups to take over the green party in key areas

...three Green candidates already barred from standing due to histories antisemitic comments. 

If the new Green 🇸🇦party and Galloway's )never done a day's) work-ers party pick up the muslim vote in the West Midlands/ NorthWest/West Yorks caliphate and certain seats in London , then this could eat into the no of seats that should go to Labour, and depending on turnout we cojld see a few reform seats as they take advantage of the disenfranchised white vote that loved Boris but have been let down since 2019.

Looking more likely that a minority Labour government will be the result on 5th July, but a deal with lib dems is all they'll have because Gorgeous George and the Greens won't forgive Starmer for his lack of support for the terrorists in Gaza.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Andyben said:

Called it.

 

Sadly the Tory party will then be finished as an electable party, like Labour under Corbyn was 

The people who actually determine elections are generally those in the centre, not that politically engaged. My vote counts no different to Mrs MK's 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Skamp said:

Proper bloke's bloke. Like Boris.

I assume Piers Morgan is giving his head a wobble right now.

He's a grifter, much like Johnson.

And tbf to @Andybenhis analysis could come true. If he picks up the remnants of the Tories after the election, makes/merges a new right wing opposition then things are going to get much nastier in the UK by the next election. As much as I hate saying it, a centre Tory core remaining in charge of them after July 4th is the best outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andyben said:

Fancy a side bet on No majority?

Tempting but No. 

I'm interested in why you're so confident though. The things you've mentioned to date aren't really going to have much of an impact, so what do you really think will cause a hung parliament? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Who said hung parliament?

No overall majority would mean everything from a Labour minority government to a Tory minority government and everything in between.

Farage taking a front line position is more of a danger to Labour than the tories - as per previous election when they took more votes from traditional Labour seats.

The tories have blown their chances so badly and have lost so many voters this won't actually have much of an impact on them.

Be interested to see if any current tory MPs now defect to Reform.

I know you don't like him or his views but watch the whole thing and you'll see what I mean. 

He would have won his last seat if the Tories didn't cheat. Remember one of their agents got a 9mth prison sentence because of it.

Like I posted above. He's after th disenfranchised voters that feel cheated by both major parties.

 

Edited by Andyben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BraddersTim said:

Tice and Farage not even speaking apparently so it might have to be a hostile takeover if your theory is to pan out.

This is the danger the main parties face.

They were always talking and discussing whether Farage takes a seat and the leadership.

Big mistake to discount them and their natural followers , like in 2016 & 2019 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyben said:

This is the danger the main parties face.

They were always talking and discussing whether Farage takes a seat and the leadership.

Big mistake to discount them and their natural followers , like in 2016 & 2019 

I honestly don't think that he's that bothered about this election. Imo he's after picking up the pieces and building for the next one as the UK Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...