FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Tory poll boost
Tory poll boost
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him? "Trust a bunch of back stabbing c*nts. Lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime." Just curious...why are our public services failing in your opinion? What is the cause? How would you fix them? How would fix them without spending more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. " This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime. Just curious...why are our public services failing in your opinion? What is the cause? How would you fix them? How would fix them without spending more?" The question isn't how I would fix them. The issue is that Labour and its voters, think that the problems can be fixed by spending more money, which is what successive governments have been doing for fifty years. So how is Labour going to raise that money, or if it intends to increase spending without more taxation, which services will it be cutting to increase expenditure elsewhere. These are the questions that Starmer will have to answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread should be Pat’s wet dream! Where is he? Or is he here in plain sight "Maybe it's flattery or dare I say Plagiarism  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. " The propaganda machine has been in full flow. And for many it provides confirmation bias and an echo chamber, for others, well they lack either the skill or the will to look beyond the headlines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. " also, the idea that the Tory plans aren't also deluded fantasies. The question to ask is: why don't you believe the labour plans? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime. Just curious...why are our public services failing in your opinion? What is the cause? How would you fix them? How would fix them without spending more? The question isn't how I would fix them. The issue is that Labour and its voters, think that the problems can be fixed by spending more money, which is what successive governments have been doing for fifty years. So how is Labour going to raise that money, or if it intends to increase spending without more taxation, which services will it be cutting to increase expenditure elsewhere. These are the questions that Starmer will have to answer. " So you have no actual idea if our public services are failing or why that may be? So that was just hyperbole with no substance? Look up government debt for the last 30 years and also government debt as % of GDP. You might be surprised to see who marshalled the economy better. You also need to ask how the Tories funded all their tax cuts. They basically sold off the family silver, at a discounted price, providing some short term gain but no long term security. Trouble is they are running out of things to sell! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. " Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed." Its 100% because they represent the interests of big corporations and multi millionaires. Have the budget for a much slicker PR machine and the backing of the press. Besides there are more than two options to vote for. I'm guessing there would be someone else out there for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed." I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .." So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that." You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship?" I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed." You have only a few years on me, and so I'm guessing your experience is Blair and brown. Interestingly they are sometimes positioned as Tory lite. I disliked GB "no more boom and bust". It showed arrogance that he had more power than he did. But is that an intrinsic labour attitude or just the attitude at the time ? He, like the Tories today, and indeed many people today, ran their finances too hand to mouth during the good times. So we're fucked in the bad times. The alternative is to create an emergency cash (wealth) fund. But in general, it appears parties come in, and go, off the back of wider financial turmoil. I wonder if the Tories have had the majority of the power in the last 40 years because they were in the seat at the right time ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that." Education. The key to breaking the cycle is to start teaching kids how to think critically about they receive. Look at the sources, determine the difference between an opinion piece and actually information. This is a skill that's severely lacking in this country. As above, the brexit referendum is an excellent example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. " Actually, Labour aren't in the pockets of the oil companies, and had an excellent energy strategy in the last GE. I didn't vote Labour BTW. But just seems like you didn't read it at the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. " Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up!" That's very interesting but it still doesn't answer my original question which is, exactly what are the Labour Party's policies? Like Starmer, you are unable to provide any. Instead you have demanded to know what my policies are, even though I am not standing for election. We agree I think that Labour has no policies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some sort of poll bounce seemed inevitable post Truss. Hopefully people will soon remember why they're so fed up of the Tories. Especially with the hard times coming." Well quarterly energy bills are about to hit and BoE will probably still raise interest rates. The Tories only hope is that the reduction in gas wholesale prices is sustained. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some sort of poll bounce seemed inevitable post Truss. Hopefully people will soon remember why they're so fed up of the Tories. Especially with the hard times coming." To be expected yes, deep shit ratings frightened them so they binned her.. Bit harder to disassociate from the fact that lots of them were part of her imbecilic incompetent mess as they also were with Boris's fuck you lot behaviour.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! That's very interesting but it still doesn't answer my original question which is, exactly what are the Labour Party's policies? Like Starmer, you are unable to provide any. Instead you have demanded to know what my policies are, even though I am not standing for election. We agree I think that Labour has no policies." More than interesting, it completely torpedoes the trope that Labour couldn’t manage the economy and the Conservatives do! Wonderful distraction straight from the school of Pat. Neither am I up for election so Labour’s policies are not for me to answer. Equally, why would an opposition party provide detail on policies without a general election being called? Their job, while in opposition, is to hold govt to account and try to curb the power of the executive. Once a GE is called their job is to get elected with a mandate from the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! That's very interesting but it still doesn't answer my original question which is, exactly what are the Labour Party's policies? Like Starmer, you are unable to provide any. Instead you have demanded to know what my policies are, even though I am not standing for election. We agree I think that Labour has no policies." This guy is confirming my opinion, and the opinion of the OP. The Tory's vice like grip on the electorate is as strong as ever. People will vote Tory no matter what. As I said before, the entire government could kick down this guy's front door, smash up his gaff, shit on the bed and the only response would be "what about Labour", "captain hindsight", "Corbyn" etc. The political system is designed to self perpetuate, and to convince enough people that either this is as good as it gets, or that any positive change is to be feared. The only way out is to have a savvy electorate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! That's very interesting but it still doesn't answer my original question which is, exactly what are the Labour Party's policies? Like Starmer, you are unable to provide any. Instead you have demanded to know what my policies are, even though I am not standing for election. We agree I think that Labour has no policies. This guy is confirming my opinion, and the opinion of the OP. The Tory's vice like grip on the electorate is as strong as ever. People will vote Tory no matter what. As I said before, the entire government could kick down this guy's front door, smash up his gaff, shit on the bed and the only response would be "what about Labour", "captain hindsight", "Corbyn" etc. The political system is designed to self perpetuate, and to convince enough people that either this is as good as it gets, or that any positive change is to be feared. The only way out is to have a savvy electorate. " If only all the ‘thickos’ that vote Conservative were as clever as you assume you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him? "After the Truss disaster it would be difficult to get much worse so an improvement is very much welcomed. I'm not sure that avoiding the financial melt down we saw in the first weeks of Truss should be considered success. To me that should be standard | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him? "Ah, so you now believe the polls?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime." That point is prior to a general election. Thus avoiding the Tories nicking the ones that go down well with the public... Why do you want stammer to show his hand now?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime. That point is prior to a general election. Thus avoiding the Tories nicking the ones that go down well with the public... Why do you want stammer to show his hand now?!" Yes its not like they haven’t got form for nicking other party’s ideas is it, so I think Starmer is probably right to hold back although I wish he was a bit more dynamic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him? "Hay has gine.You really are are Pat, aren't you?
Go on, deny it some more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. Labour will be under pressure from its union backers to hand out even more cash to prop up our failing public services but they will only be able to fund that through skimming more cash off the electorate through even higher taxes, which are already at record highs and are strangling the economy. Otherwise the only way Labour will be able to differentiate itself is through nutcase net zero commitments that will impoverish everyone even more, or by focusing on important stuff like making misgendering people on Twitter a crime. That point is prior to a general election. Thus avoiding the Tories nicking the ones that go down well with the public... Why do you want stammer to show his hand now?! Yes its not like they haven’t got form for nicking other party’s ideas is it, so I think Starmer is probably right to hold back although I wish he was a bit more dynamic" Like 6 months energy cap? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am happy that the Parliamentary tories came to their senses and overrode the will of their party members. Because those bunch of idiots caused this mess. The bounce is also good as it will steady the ship. Looking forward to all the tax hikes to cut inflation also. I think the 5p cut to fuel duty will be reversed, then there will be a windfall tax, also I hope they will retain the 1.25% social care levy. I suspect there might be a task force set up recover the covid loans. Austerity 2.0 seems in order. Hopefully the tories will recover their lead and they will resolve the mess they put themselves into. "Except the Parliamentary Tories supported BoJo at his worst. I agree with a lot of the rest of your post except for Austerity 2.0 After Austerity 1.0 was there any recovery in public services? Was anything made more efficient or better? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him?
Hay has gine.You really are are Pat, aren't you?
Go on, deny it some more "As is the case more often than not, there is so little English in your post, Nicola Sturgeon would be happy with it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new poll for the Observer has revealed Rishi Sunak and the new Conservatives have overturned Labour’s lead in terms of who voters trust most to manage the economy. 33% said they would prefer “a Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak” to manage the economy, with 29% choosing “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”. When asked in the previous poll last week, 39% chose “a Labour government led by Keir Starmer”, with only 11% choosing “a Conservative government led by Liz Truss. Sunak continues life in No 10 with a net positive approval rating. Some 31% approve of the job he is doing, with 23% disapproving – giving him a +8 rating overall. The FTSE 100 Index continues to trade at over 7000 and with gas price falls expected to feed into lower inflation next year, the pressure on interest rates will ease. Sterling has risen and stabilised. The interest the Government has to pay on its stock of public debt has fallen back. Both indicators the markets have confidence in Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt. They were even able to delay the next financial statement from October 31st to November 17th (now a full autumn statement) without a squeak from the markets. UK inflation is 10 % but Europe's average is closer to 11%. We have record low unemployment. Is the Truss turbulence temporary? Is the fashionable wisdom that Labour will walk the next election wrong? Captain Hindsight is an arch Remainer, but now wants to keep Brexit. He fought to get Corbyn into Downing Street, twice, but now disowns him. He wanted to abolish the monarchy, but now poses as a royalist after his knighthood. He pledged in 2020 to bring rail, mail, water and energy back into common ownership then flip flopped. He'll fight the next election on a manifesto of many things he's fought against previously. Of course, we had u turns in the temporary Truss turbulence tenure, but Starmer makes so many, is he going round in circles and should people ultimately vote for him?
Ah, so you now believe the polls? "I believe the poll on polling day. I keep telling you that they're a guide only and frequently change. The stellar poll leads Labour had in 1990 and 1991 (around 24%) evaporated into a comfortable Tory win in 1992. This Observer poll still gives Labour a very comfortable lead. Do I believe that will hold all the way to polling day in 2024 /25? No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up!" More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am happy that the Parliamentary tories came to their senses and overrode the will of their party members. Because those bunch of idiots caused this mess. The bounce is also good as it will steady the ship. Looking forward to all the tax hikes to cut inflation also. I think the 5p cut to fuel duty will be reversed, then there will be a windfall tax, also I hope they will retain the 1.25% social care levy. I suspect there might be a task force set up recover the covid loans. Austerity 2.0 seems in order. Hopefully the tories will recover their lead and they will resolve the mess they put themselves into.
Except the Parliamentary Tories supported BoJo at his worst.
I agree with a lot of the rest of your post except for Austerity 2.0 After Austerity 1.0 was there any recovery in public services? Was anything made more efficient or better?"Probably, more efficient ways of cutting services perhaps, or better ways of lying to the public about how things are great. You know, the usual shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? " Are these verified facts? Where did you get this revelation from? Tufton St? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? " Nice try but no cigar. What Earth are you even talking about? 1. Government owing itself. What utter nonsense. It may be semantics but seriously that just isn’t how things work. You do understand how the Government raises “money” right? 2. You say it might be more telling “public sector net debt” then quote the same figure for 2009/10. I think you are getting in a pickle and conflating or mislabelling Government debt. 3. You’ll notice that I ensured I was comparing apples with apples by providing figures for Govt debt in the year preceding a global crisis AND then one for the period following a global crisis. You are comparing apples with oranges. 4. Then you throw out 1976 as if that is remotely relevant. Neither the Labour Party or the Conservative Party today resemble what they were almost 50 years ago! How far back shall we go? Shall we talk about Govt debt following WWII or WWI? Napoleonic War? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? " Why are you trying so hard deny that there might be any other alternative to this current Conservative incompetence? It’s not normal to not only be in denial about reality but to then try to gaslight people on a fucking swingers site to try to prove a point? It is common knowledge that that the debt in 2009/2010 was almost wholly related to the global financial crisis. It was not a direct result of the governments incompetence. The last time that any government ran the country in surplus was in the Blair/Brown era. The 1976 IMF bailout was as a direct consequence of The Barber Budget - known as the spend to grow budget. It ultimately collapsed Ted Heaths Conservative Government and the Labour Government that followed were unable to get control of the economy without emergency funding. You really ought to try to get a fully rounded picture of events and accept that ALL governments get stuff right, and all governments get stuff wrong. This current Conservative government has not helped ordinary people and nothing in our society has improved in the last 12 years. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to think that 12 years is long enough and it is time to look for an alternative course of action. That doesn’t mean that Starmer and Co are given a free pass, but it does mean that if you are a normal, pragmatic thinking person you can evaluate their policies and ideas as they are released. For example, would a state-owned National green energy company be better than the rip offs that we have going on at the moment? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would bringing back train operating companies back into a state-owned National rail network when their franchise expires be better for the ordinary people if this country? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would taxing those with the broadest shoulders more work better than forcing austerity into the poorest in society work better? Well - austerity has not worked in the last 12 years, so let’s try something different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? Why are you trying so hard deny that there might be any other alternative to this current Conservative incompetence? It’s not normal to not only be in denial about reality but to then try to gaslight people on a fucking swingers site to try to prove a point? It is common knowledge that that the debt in 2009/2010 was almost wholly related to the global financial crisis. It was not a direct result of the governments incompetence. The last time that any government ran the country in surplus was in the Blair/Brown era. The 1976 IMF bailout was as a direct consequence of The Barber Budget - known as the spend to grow budget. It ultimately collapsed Ted Heaths Conservative Government and the Labour Government that followed were unable to get control of the economy without emergency funding. You really ought to try to get a fully rounded picture of events and accept that ALL governments get stuff right, and all governments get stuff wrong. This current Conservative government has not helped ordinary people and nothing in our society has improved in the last 12 years. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to think that 12 years is long enough and it is time to look for an alternative course of action. That doesn’t mean that Starmer and Co are given a free pass, but it does mean that if you are a normal, pragmatic thinking person you can evaluate their policies and ideas as they are released. For example, would a state-owned National green energy company be better than the rip offs that we have going on at the moment? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would bringing back train operating companies back into a state-owned National rail network when their franchise expires be better for the ordinary people if this country? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would taxing those with the broadest shoulders more work better than forcing austerity into the poorest in society work better? Well - austerity has not worked in the last 12 years, so let’s try something different." What do you think has been "austere" about the last 12 years, given the state that the public finances are in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. " Just for clarity, the net zero policy if actually enacted would have saved us billions by now. Everything from more energy efficient homes to significantly cheaper and renewable energy that could have been independent of global prices wrong ago. Borders are not "wife open". They are very blocked for EU trade and legal routes for refugees. The rest is reasonably fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? Why are you trying so hard deny that there might be any other alternative to this current Conservative incompetence? It’s not normal to not only be in denial about reality but to then try to gaslight people on a fucking swingers site to try to prove a point? It is common knowledge that that the debt in 2009/2010 was almost wholly related to the global financial crisis. It was not a direct result of the governments incompetence. The last time that any government ran the country in surplus was in the Blair/Brown era. The 1976 IMF bailout was as a direct consequence of The Barber Budget - known as the spend to grow budget. It ultimately collapsed Ted Heaths Conservative Government and the Labour Government that followed were unable to get control of the economy without emergency funding. You really ought to try to get a fully rounded picture of events and accept that ALL governments get stuff right, and all governments get stuff wrong. This current Conservative government has not helped ordinary people and nothing in our society has improved in the last 12 years. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to think that 12 years is long enough and it is time to look for an alternative course of action. That doesn’t mean that Starmer and Co are given a free pass, but it does mean that if you are a normal, pragmatic thinking person you can evaluate their policies and ideas as they are released. For example, would a state-owned National green energy company be better than the rip offs that we have going on at the moment? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would bringing back train operating companies back into a state-owned National rail network when their franchise expires be better for the ordinary people if this country? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would taxing those with the broadest shoulders more work better than forcing austerity into the poorest in society work better? Well - austerity has not worked in the last 12 years, so let’s try something different. What do you think has been "austere" about the last 12 years, given the state that the public finances are in? " Real-terms pay cuts for public sector staff. Cutting numbers of public sector staff and being surprised about service delays and delivery failures. Sinking moral and staff retiring early and leaving. Failing local council services due to cuts in funding. What country do you live in that you don't see this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? " Oh, Pat! You can change your profile name and be a little ruder but in the end you end up writing lots of things that you don't understand to try to defend the indefensible. What has to happen for you to decide that this party and resulting Government isn't functioning? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At some point Starmer is going to have to tell us exactly what Labour's policies are and people will realise that they are either pretty much the same as the Tory policies or deluded fantasy. This right here is why democracy in the country is broken. People have been conditioned to believe that there is no other way. "Same as the Tories or deluded fantasy" It's really sad to think that people can't even imagine a government that would work for the country and its people. Some of us have been "conditioned" by our real life experience of Labour governments, which are invariably economically illiterate. As we are seeing now, governments spending lots of money they haven't got doesn't help working people. It ends up making things worse. Sure, the Tories have been on a three year bender with the country's public finances, and have been utterly incomplete at delivering anything they were elected to do. But unfortunately in my experience of Labour governments they are not likely to be any better. There is actually a good reason why the Tories are in power a lot more frequently than Labour. It's not just because us peasants have been brainwashed. I think you give too much credit to the average voter, brexit is a prime example of the lack of understanding of the issue and the easy to swallow nonsense that was put out by both sides.. One side played the racism/fear of the foreign type to its own advantage.. As Birldn said it needs looking back over a longer period than just one that allows the cliché of 'but Brown sold off the gold cheap' whilst ignoring the actions taken which prevented a catastrophic collapse of the banking sector.. And it's very pertinent that the establishment have more media outlets to spin the fear against the centre left/ left because they will protect their own at any cost .. So what's the solution to this apparent problem? A General Election where only Labour voters can participate? Or a Brexit Referendum where only Remain is on the ballot? Oh hang on Starmer already tried that. You clearly can’t answer the point on public services failing or the reason for that? You shouted that out like it was fact but don’t support it. Similarly you say Labour are not good custodians of the UK economy. It simply isn’t true. You are 49 but claim to have seen first hand the poor Labour governance. So you can only be talking about Blair/Brown era. Have you checked the figures for govt debt (inc as % of GDP) between 1997-2010 compared to last 12 years of the Tories running the ship? I have said that the Conservative government has been marked by fiscal incontinence and lack of delivery. As for the public spending bender that the Tories have been on since 2019 what do you disapprove of? If you supported lockdowns and the disastrous energy policy that the government has been pursuing then I'm afraid you have no right to complain about the consequences. We all know that Labour would have pursued identical policies and probably worse. Do we? Or is that conjecture? You do realise that while in opposition a party does not have access to all the information the government does right? We have no idea how a Labour govt would have actually responded to the pandemic. It is all conjecture. Now back to Tories being guardians of the economy... UK Government Debt under Labour 2007/08 = £0.64tn (before Financial Crisis and after 10yrs in power) = 34% GDP 2009/10 = 1.08tn (after the global financial crash and follow on recession) = 62.4% GDP UK Government Debt under Conservatives 2018/19 = £1.82tn (before Covid pandemic and after nearly a decade of austerity and power) = 78.4% GDP 2020/21 = £2.13tn (after global pandemic) = 94% GDP Guardians of the public purse LOL. The Tories pursued a decade of austerity and still couldn’t balance the books despite record low interest rates. They had access to almost free money and still fucked it up! More telling to look at public sector net debt - what the government owes to private institutions. It doesn’t include money owed between different areas of the government — in other words, it doesn’t measure what the government owes itself — or the debts of banks owned by the government. Public sector net debt was £347 billion in 1996 the year before Labour came into office, and £1,011 billion in 2009/10, their last financial year in power. That’s a cash terms rise of 191% over 13 years, which contrasts badly with a 71% rise over 7 years with Conservative Chancellors between 2010 and 2017. With Labour's trip to the IMF in 1976, is it any wonder (as some people on here have already worked out) that, apart from the Truss temporary turbulence tenure, the Tories have a better record for economic competence than 'there's no money left sorry' Labour? Why are you trying so hard deny that there might be any other alternative to this current Conservative incompetence? It’s not normal to not only be in denial about reality but to then try to gaslight people on a fucking swingers site to try to prove a point? It is common knowledge that that the debt in 2009/2010 was almost wholly related to the global financial crisis. It was not a direct result of the governments incompetence. The last time that any government ran the country in surplus was in the Blair/Brown era. The 1976 IMF bailout was as a direct consequence of The Barber Budget - known as the spend to grow budget. It ultimately collapsed Ted Heaths Conservative Government and the Labour Government that followed were unable to get control of the economy without emergency funding. You really ought to try to get a fully rounded picture of events and accept that ALL governments get stuff right, and all governments get stuff wrong. This current Conservative government has not helped ordinary people and nothing in our society has improved in the last 12 years. Ergo, it is perfectly reasonable to think that 12 years is long enough and it is time to look for an alternative course of action. That doesn’t mean that Starmer and Co are given a free pass, but it does mean that if you are a normal, pragmatic thinking person you can evaluate their policies and ideas as they are released. For example, would a state-owned National green energy company be better than the rip offs that we have going on at the moment? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would bringing back train operating companies back into a state-owned National rail network when their franchise expires be better for the ordinary people if this country? Probably yes - subject to more detail. Would taxing those with the broadest shoulders more work better than forcing austerity into the poorest in society work better? Well - austerity has not worked in the last 12 years, so let’s try something different. What do you think has been "austere" about the last 12 years, given the state that the public finances are in? " Reduction in local services including but not limited to: youth, mental health, social, education, and adult learning. Reduction in real terms funding to Police, NHS and all local, regional and National state funding which has resulted in public sector pay freezes. This has not been disguised and is not sleight of hand. It was a political decision to reduce pay, options and services to those at the lower end of the demographic scale. It hasn’t worked because the national economy needs the local economies to all be working and if you starve the local economies of cash then they can’t contribute to the National cause. Therefore, it is time to try something different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker " This makes no sense. What about "the alternative" do you not like other? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker " I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course!" If it was Maggie Thatchers era then they got it all for free anyway rather than my three kids who will be paying their student loan debt off for some years to come | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! If it was Maggie Thatchers era then they got it all for free anyway rather than my three kids who will be paying their student loan debt off for some years to come " Of course it would have been a grant! In which case the tax payer should be asking for some money back! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker This makes no sense. What about "the alternative" do you not like other?" Given the dreadful spelling and grammar that you employ on a day to day basis here, it really is hypocrisy of the highest order, not to mention completely disrespectful, to publicly rebuke a man of his age for his post. At least we can work out what he is trying to say, which can't often be said for you, several decades younger. I say hear hear and hats off to him  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course!" Plain rude  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude "We’re you a fan of Maggie thacker? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. " Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
We’re you a fan of Maggie thacker? "You've just written an apostrophised version of 'we are you a fan of...' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
We’re you a fan of Maggie thacker?
You've just written an apostrophised version of 'we are you a fan of...' "Really? That is a shame , Anyway, we’re you a fan of Maggie thacker? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
We’re you a fan of Maggie thacker?
You've just written an apostrophised version of 'we are you a fan of...'
Really? That is a shame , Anyway, we’re you a fan of Maggie thacker? "Know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude "The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz! As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then! Doh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. " So much wrong with everything above but just got up and can’t be arsed. You do you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. " The Home Office really should know why and how “tens of thousands?” of young, fit Albanians are coming to this country. We are supposed to have an intelligence community that has a grip on these issues and if not - well that is simply another example of Government incompetence. My take… there are not “tens of thousands” of Albanians coming across the channel at all. There are probably some who are taking their chances because the illegal crossing infrastructure is already in place. Is it surprising though that people get scared when they are told day in and day out about invasions and swarms of “illegals”? Some of our so called newspapers have a long, long history of whipping up fear like this and you don’t have to look much further than the Daily Mail that really should have been shut down in 1938. This Government is DIRECTLY responsible for what is happening in the channel and the French, the EU and anyone with half a brain knows this. They just need to reopen the legal asylum routes that they closed down in order to reduce the pull to the French coast. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. The Home Office really should know why and how “tens of thousands?” of young, fit Albanians are coming to this country. We are supposed to have an intelligence community that has a grip on these issues and if not - well that is simply another example of Government incompetence. My take… there are not “tens of thousands” of Albanians coming across the channel at all. There are probably some who are taking their chances because the illegal crossing infrastructure is already in place. Is it surprising though that people get scared when they are told day in and day out about invasions and swarms of “illegals”? Some of our so called newspapers have a long, long history of whipping up fear like this and you don’t have to look much further than the Daily Mail that really should have been shut down in 1938. This Government is DIRECTLY responsible for what is happening in the channel and the French, the EU and anyone with half a brain knows this. They just need to reopen the legal asylum routes that they closed down in order to reduce the pull to the French coast." To be fair it is a very simple way of solving illegal immigration. Just allow anyone who feels like it to move to the UK legally. Problem solved! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. The Home Office really should know why and how “tens of thousands?” of young, fit Albanians are coming to this country. We are supposed to have an intelligence community that has a grip on these issues and if not - well that is simply another example of Government incompetence. My take… there are not “tens of thousands” of Albanians coming across the channel at all. There are probably some who are taking their chances because the illegal crossing infrastructure is already in place. Is it surprising though that people get scared when they are told day in and day out about invasions and swarms of “illegals”? Some of our so called newspapers have a long, long history of whipping up fear like this and you don’t have to look much further than the Daily Mail that really should have been shut down in 1938. This Government is DIRECTLY responsible for what is happening in the channel and the French, the EU and anyone with half a brain knows this. They just need to reopen the legal asylum routes that they closed down in order to reduce the pull to the French coast. To be fair it is a very simple way of solving illegal immigration. Just allow anyone who feels like it to move to the UK legally. Problem solved!" This is just silly and that is why those who cry all night about the channel crossers think that anyone who disagrees with them wants completely open borders. It's the Brexit divide all over again, isn't it? The anti-immigration fantasists can only imagine simple solutions - all in, or none in. A realistic immigration system means thinking, applying pragmatism and taking difficult and complicated decisions. Such detailed and multi-dimensional thought processes are as difficult for the anti-immigrations zealots as they were for the Brexiters. Perhaps it is because the extremist Brexiters and the anti-immigration zealots are in fact one and the same? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. The Home Office really should know why and how “tens of thousands?” of young, fit Albanians are coming to this country. We are supposed to have an intelligence community that has a grip on these issues and if not - well that is simply another example of Government incompetence. My take… there are not “tens of thousands” of Albanians coming across the channel at all. There are probably some who are taking their chances because the illegal crossing infrastructure is already in place. Is it surprising though that people get scared when they are told day in and day out about invasions and swarms of “illegals”? Some of our so called newspapers have a long, long history of whipping up fear like this and you don’t have to look much further than the Daily Mail that really should have been shut down in 1938. This Government is DIRECTLY responsible for what is happening in the channel and the French, the EU and anyone with half a brain knows this. They just need to reopen the legal asylum routes that they closed down in order to reduce the pull to the French coast. To be fair it is a very simple way of solving illegal immigration. Just allow anyone who feels like it to move to the UK legally. Problem solved! This is just silly and that is why those who cry all night about the channel crossers think that anyone who disagrees with them wants completely open borders. It's the Brexit divide all over again, isn't it? The anti-immigration fantasists can only imagine simple solutions - all in, or none in. A realistic immigration system means thinking, applying pragmatism and taking difficult and complicated decisions. Such detailed and multi-dimensional thought processes are as difficult for the anti-immigrations zealots as they were for the Brexiters. Perhaps it is because the extremist Brexiters and the anti-immigration zealots are in fact one and the same? " Are you suggesting some are a bit, well, thick? Easily swayed or influenced by the rhetoric of fascist commentators? Lacking in the ability to undertake even the most rudimentary research outside of their echo chamber channels of choice to better educate themselves on a topic? That life can only be binary and tribalist and that everything is either/or with no other and black & white with no grey? Careful the snowflakes will get triggered! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Incredible. After 12 years of government we have the highest tax burden for nearly fifty years, a net zero policy that is killing us, billions wasted, services in the bin, Tory infighting as never before, market chaos, borders wide open, government gangsters lining their pockets, prices doubled, potential for winter power cuts.. But, Labour.. Prices of what have doubled? Inflation is 10% and likely to fall next year. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the Corbyn element. What services are 'in the bin'? What do you propose to do about record immigration? People are concerned over tens of thousands of fit, young Albanians 'fleeing' France which is a safe country. The bigger question they ask is why are they fleeing Albania, a safe country not at war with anyone..? What are the Labour proposals? Every time the Tories attempt something, leftie legal luvvies using legal aid clog up the courts with appeals! Jeremy Vine's show yesterday was very telling. Virtually every caller had these concerns. The Home Office really should know why and how “tens of thousands?” of young, fit Albanians are coming to this country. We are supposed to have an intelligence community that has a grip on these issues and if not - well that is simply another example of Government incompetence. My take… there are not “tens of thousands” of Albanians coming across the channel at all. There are probably some who are taking their chances because the illegal crossing infrastructure is already in place. Is it surprising though that people get scared when they are told day in and day out about invasions and swarms of “illegals”? Some of our so called newspapers have a long, long history of whipping up fear like this and you don’t have to look much further than the Daily Mail that really should have been shut down in 1938. This Government is DIRECTLY responsible for what is happening in the channel and the French, the EU and anyone with half a brain knows this. They just need to reopen the legal asylum routes that they closed down in order to reduce the pull to the French coast. To be fair it is a very simple way of solving illegal immigration. Just allow anyone who feels like it to move to the UK legally. Problem solved! This is just silly and that is why those who cry all night about the channel crossers think that anyone who disagrees with them wants completely open borders. It's the Brexit divide all over again, isn't it? The anti-immigration fantasists can only imagine simple solutions - all in, or none in. A realistic immigration system means thinking, applying pragmatism and taking difficult and complicated decisions. Such detailed and multi-dimensional thought processes are as difficult for the anti-immigrations zealots as they were for the Brexiters. Perhaps it is because the extremist Brexiters and the anti-immigration zealots are in fact one and the same? " don't be silly. It's either let everyone in (loopy left view) or shoot on sight and put anyone who gets through in a "work" camp. Pick a side folks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will never understand why the masses (who barely earn enough) vote Tory. It’s an English disease. The UK is over. No longer relevant on the international stage and the butt if jokes regarding our economy. It’s the same old tory nonsense. Lies. Deception. Incompetence. It’s time the Union Jack was taken down and forgotten about. " I don't look at my salary and decide who I'm going to vote for. Best I can do is try to judge who will be the best government of those on offer. Unfortunately until they are in we only have their word that they will do the things they promise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will never understand why the masses (who barely earn enough) vote Tory. It’s an English disease. The UK is over. No longer relevant on the international stage and the butt if jokes regarding our economy. It’s the same old tory nonsense. Lies. Deception. Incompetence. It’s time the Union Jack was taken down and forgotten about. I don't look at my salary and decide who I'm going to vote for. Best I can do is try to judge who will be the best government of those on offer. Unfortunately until they are in we only have their word that they will do the things they promise." I hear you on the “wriggle out of manifesto pledges” although I do actually have a little more leeway for the opposition parties than the incumbent due to access to information the latter has when writing their manifesto. It isn’t “salary” that we should look at so much as what the Govt do with the bit they take off us. Some people want Govt to take less but seem shocked when public services are not as good anymore. Some people will begrudgingly accept Govt taking a bit more but want to see that going to the right place and having a positive effect. Nobody wants to see our taxes funding Govt ineptitude or corruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will never understand why the masses (who barely earn enough) vote Tory. It’s an English disease. The UK is over. No longer relevant on the international stage and the butt if jokes regarding our economy. It’s the same old tory nonsense. Lies. Deception. Incompetence. It’s time the Union Jack was taken down and forgotten about. I don't look at my salary and decide who I'm going to vote for. Best I can do is try to judge who will be the best government of those on offer. Unfortunately until they are in we only have their word that they will do the things they promise. I hear you on the “wriggle out of manifesto pledges” although I do actually have a little more leeway for the opposition parties than the incumbent due to access to information the latter has when writing their manifesto. It isn’t “salary” that we should look at so much as what the Govt do with the bit they take off us. Some people want Govt to take less but seem shocked when public services are not as good anymore. Some people will begrudgingly accept Govt taking a bit more but want to see that going to the right place and having a positive effect. Nobody wants to see our taxes funding Govt ineptitude or corruption. " I agree it's not the persons salary, which was my very point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!"Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh! I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90? I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
"Nice try but you’d have to go a long way to school me. The profile says they are 95 (I doubt that but that is what we have to go on). They said they admired Margaret thacker [sic] from their time at university. The implication being when they were a student otherwise they would say when they were a lecturer or mature student. Equally I doubt someone from university would have posted in the manner they did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
"Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff? The addition of grammar pedantry is new though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Nice try but you’d have to go a long way to school me. The profile says they are 95 (I doubt that but that is what we have to go on). They said they admired Margaret thacker [sic] from their time at university. The implication being when they were a student otherwise they would say when they were a lecturer or mature student. Equally I doubt someone from university would have posted in the manner they did."You're assuming a lot there, considering you're normally so 'evidence-based' But I guess it suits your line of attack on this occasion!
As for schooling you, no need. Rarely see any errors in that department from you. Lots of wide-eyed left leaning ideology yes, but grammar and spelling top notch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect." The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. "You stick to emojis - no chance of a spelling and/or grammar catastrophe | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though "When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. " And there’s nothing that sad lefties losers hate more , than a winner! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. And there’s nothing that sad lefties losers hate more , than a winner! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. And there’s nothing that sad lefties losers hate more , than a winner! " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. " I have some bad news for you , she is dead | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead " Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Nice try but you’d have to go a long way to school me. The profile says they are 95 (I doubt that but that is what we have to go on). They said they admired Margaret thacker [sic] from their time at university. The implication being when they were a student otherwise they would say when they were a lecturer or mature student. Equally I doubt someone from university would have posted in the manner they did.
You're assuming a lot there, considering you're normally so 'evidence-based' But I guess it suits your line of attack on this occasion!
As for schooling you, no need. Rarely see any errors in that department from you. Lots of wide-eyed left leaning ideology yes, but grammar and spelling top notch "Left leaning perhaps. Thing is I consider myself more a centrist. A pragmatist if you like and therefore advocate taking the best from any ideological system without needing to slavishly agree with all of it. I think the trouble is that over the last decade or so, there has been such a shift to the right, that nowadays even Norman Tebbit would be called a leftie! As for assuming, certainly less than you based on the evidence presented | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it "Bereft of life, stone dead | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it "Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period. Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Football hooliganism was around in the 70s" Escalation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Football hooliganism was around in the 70s" Sure but the Italia90 programme made the point that it dramatically increased, got more organised and more serious and resulted in English teams being banned from Europe. So the World Cup in Italy was a test for England fans. Worth a watch as less about football and more a social commentary on the 80s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Nice try but you’d have to go a long way to school me. The profile says they are 95 (I doubt that but that is what we have to go on). They said they admired Margaret thacker [sic] from their time at university. The implication being when they were a student otherwise they would say when they were a lecturer or mature student. Equally I doubt someone from university would have posted in the manner they did.
You're assuming a lot there, considering you're normally so 'evidence-based' But I guess it suits your line of attack on this occasion!
As for schooling you, no need. Rarely see any errors in that department from you. Lots of wide-eyed left leaning ideology yes, but grammar and spelling top notch
Left leaning perhaps. Thing is I consider myself more a centrist. A pragmatist if you like and therefore advocate taking the best from any ideological system without needing to slavishly agree with all of it.
I think the trouble is that over the last decade or so, there has been such a shift to the right, that nowadays even Norman Tebbit would be called a leftie!
As for assuming, certainly less than you based on the evidence presented "Ha ha, fair play! That's one clever post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!"I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!
I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more "She was forced to resign, cried then died | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Football hooliganism was around in the 70s Sure but the Italia90 programme made the point that it dramatically increased, got more organised and more serious and resulted in English teams being banned from Europe. So the World Cup in Italy was a test for England fans. Worth a watch as less about football and more a social commentary on the 80s." I love nostalgia programmes like this. I watched one last night where Alan Yentob interviewed Bob Geldof. The story about how Band Aid and Live Aid evolved was fascinating. I say 'interviewed', Alan had little to ask.... Bob just kept going and was very charismatic and engaging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!
I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more
She was forced to resign, cried then died "Everyone that's ever lived does 2 and 3
As regards 1, remember all political lives end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Can't remember who said it, but it'll come to your beloved Keir in the end
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!
I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more
She was forced to resign, cried then died
Everyone that's ever lived does 2 and 3
As regards 1, remember all political lives end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Can't remember who said it, but it'll come to your beloved Keir in the end
"Did you cry when she was forced to resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!
I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more
She was forced to resign, cried then died
Everyone that's ever lived does 2 and 3
As regards 1, remember all political lives end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Can't remember who said it, but it'll come to your beloved Keir in the end
"Not all political lives end in failure | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
How I loved the 2010 election campaign, when he was recorded referring to Gillian Duffy, a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale about immigration concerns, as a "bigoted woman".
What did you make of that by the way?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, yes, any admiration of Thatcher does disqualify anyone from respect. The more one compares her with Labour politicians past and present, the more she towers above them. I have some bad news for you , she is dead Thanks for the update on the Iron Lady's condition. You managed to deliver it without mangling anything! However, you omitted that 32 years ago, Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, undefeated after 3 successive landslide general election victories. She transformed the UK's economy and reputation and liberated the Falklands. She was a courageous champion of freedom. God bless her! I think that's how you feel about it
Interesting take. Pretty sure the Miners felt differently. Actually did you watch the documentary about Italia90 last night. Was fascinating. I was way too young in the 80s to know what was going on but talking to parents and documentaries like that show that the UK was becoming an increasingly angry powder keg. That violence was ready to explode. Hence the escalation of football hooliganism. It really does provide a whole other viewpoint to that period.
Also I am pretty sure I read that Thatcher’s second term was very far from guaranteed, in part due to massive unemployment and the reaction to the police handling of the miners strikes. She was saved by the Falklands War. Nothing like a war for some patriotic poll bounces!
I've got it recorded and plan to watch it this evening
No doubt, the 82 war victory boosted Thatcher. Plus she was up against Michael Foot.
Say no more
She was forced to resign, cried then died
Everyone that's ever lived does 2 and 3
As regards 1, remember all political lives end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs.
Can't remember who said it, but it'll come to your beloved Keir in the end
Not all political lives end in failure "True actually..... some land £1m a year jobs with Facebook | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom" He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom." he's not British .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom." “All the fuss” yeah like nothing to see here. Just a spotlight on our ludicrously unfair tax system that provides an opportunity for the super rich to pay a modest annual fee to avoid any scrutiny over their tax affairs by falsely claiming non-dom status. Only reason she backed down was because her advisors could see it would no end well. £30k a year to avoid potential tax bill of £20m. Not bad! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry? "When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site. That's fairly obvious, Pat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat."In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'? "It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed. You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive. I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently."Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives. "arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat? Which part of the country?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom" "He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom." "he's not British .... " Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status." Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently.
Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives.
"arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat?
Which part of the country?
""The left"
Get a grip.
If you don't understand the references, why involve yourself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing." It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. " That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean?" In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads " No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind!" Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind!" Only because you are obsessed, some could argue narrow minded. You want me to say it’s his ethnicity or colour as you assume I am a racist. Of course I’m not, sorry if that disappoints or confuses you. I have no problem with his parents coming here to live, good luck to them. If they had moved in next to me I would welcome them, chat to them, help were I could, be neighbourly. That’s what good people do. I am sure they are good people and Rishi is a real credit to them. If (when) his circumstances dictate or suit, he would be on that plane to California without a glance back. Good luck to him, I’m more likely to be envious than racist. You won’t believe that as clearly your mind is fixed. Try to very gently prise it open. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? " Well thank fuck for that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! " Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Only because you are obsessed, some could argue narrow minded. You want me to say it’s his ethnicity or colour as you assume I am a racist. Of course I’m not, sorry if that disappoints or confuses you. I have no problem with his parents coming here to live, good luck to them. If they had moved in next to me I would welcome them, chat to them, help were I could, be neighbourly. That’s what good people do. I am sure they are good people and Rishi is a real credit to them. If (when) his circumstances dictate or suit, he would be on that plane to California without a glance back. Good luck to him, I’m more likely to be envious than racist. You won’t believe that as clearly your mind is fixed. Try to very gently prise it open. " Are you suggesting that Rishi Sunak isn’t British enough to be PM because his parents came here to better themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? " Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Only because you are obsessed, some could argue narrow minded. You want me to say it’s his ethnicity or colour as you assume I am a racist. Of course I’m not, sorry if that disappoints or confuses you. I have no problem with his parents coming here to live, good luck to them. If they had moved in next to me I would welcome them, chat to them, help were I could, be neighbourly. That’s what good people do. I am sure they are good people and Rishi is a real credit to them. If (when) his circumstances dictate or suit, he would be on that plane to California without a glance back. Good luck to him, I’m more likely to be envious than racist. You won’t believe that as clearly your mind is fixed. Try to very gently prise it open. Are you suggesting that Rishi Sunak isn’t British enough to be PM because his parents came here to better themselves? " No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? " My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Only because you are obsessed, some could argue narrow minded. You want me to say it’s his ethnicity or colour as you assume I am a racist. Of course I’m not, sorry if that disappoints or confuses you. I have no problem with his parents coming here to live, good luck to them. If they had moved in next to me I would welcome them, chat to them, help were I could, be neighbourly. That’s what good people do. I am sure they are good people and Rishi is a real credit to them. If (when) his circumstances dictate or suit, he would be on that plane to California without a glance back. Good luck to him, I’m more likely to be envious than racist. You won’t believe that as clearly your mind is fixed. Try to very gently prise it open. Are you suggesting that Rishi Sunak isn’t British enough to be PM because his parents came here to better themselves? No" Are you saying Rishi Sunak isn’t British enough to the PM | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? " How am I stereotyping Rishi? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? How am I stereotyping Rishi?" You are stating that he is an economic migrant ? Why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? How am I stereotyping Rishi? You are stating that he is an economic migrant ? Why " He comes from a line of economic migrants, and I see nothing to suggest he will be any different. He looks like a good man to me. Good luck to him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? How am I stereotyping Rishi? You are stating that he is an economic migrant ? Why He comes from a line of economic migrants, and I see nothing to suggest he will be any different. He looks like a good man to me. Good luck to him. " So you are stereo typing him stating he is the same as his parents , btw, what is wrong with being an ‘economic migrant ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? How am I stereotyping Rishi? You are stating that he is an economic migrant ? Why He comes from a line of economic migrants, and I see nothing to suggest he will be any different. He looks like a good man to me. Good luck to him. So you are stereo typing him stating he is the same as his parents , btw, what is wrong with being an ‘economic migrant ? " Absolutely nothing wrong with being an economic migrant. As I have stated numerous times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb?" Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. That’s quite an assertion Seb He was born here, went to a posh public school here, his parents live here…. I wonder what you really mean? In his speech he expressed ‘thanks to the party that I love and the country that has given me so much’. I mean nothing more than what I have expressed already. He comes from a line of economic migrants / nomads No that’s really not good enough as a response! How far back do you need to go to not be an economic migrant? My roots are Irish, French and Jewish and I know the Irish bit were economic migrants so I think your assertion smacks of something rather unpleasant dressed up as reasonable white man speaking their mind! Indeed, I have Italian and Irish ancestors, am I also unfit and not British enough to be the PM? Well thank fuck for that! Pardon, your very tetchy and angry this morning ? Anyway, as I am not ‘pure’ British and have descended from Italians and Irish people , does that make me British enough to be PM? Do you have close & extended family in the UK that would / could not just up and leave for sunlit uplands at the drop of a hat? Family that are part of everyday life in terms of education, work, public services etc? What means more to you - the Labour Party or the UK? Would you happily become a Tory to stand a better chance of being elected? My family would leave the UK if they felt that they could find a better life elsewhere. I don’t ‘love’ the UK or the Labour Party as much as my family and friends . If I wanted to be a politician I would stand for the party that best represented my values . Why are you stereo typing Rishi Sunak? How am I stereotyping Rishi? You are stating that he is an economic migrant ? Why He comes from a line of economic migrants, and I see nothing to suggest he will be any different. He looks like a good man to me. Good luck to him. So you are stereo typing him stating he is the same as his parents , btw, what is wrong with being an ‘economic migrant ? Absolutely nothing wrong with being an economic migrant. As I have stated numerous times. " So you don’t think Rishi Sunsk should be PM because his parents are economic migrants but you have no problem with economic migrants, your confused again Seb, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. " Are you British enough to be the PM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? " Absolutely | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely " But Rishi Sunak isn’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh come on Seb How British are you? What’s your family history? Have your predecessors been economic migrants/nomads? What makes you emotionally invested in this country? Come on laddie, it’s time to nail your colours to the mast "Shall I go and ask the ones that are buried in France? What has my background got to do with anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh come on Seb How British are you? What’s your family history? Have your predecessors been economic migrants/nomads? What makes you emotionally invested in this country? Come on laddie, it’s time to nail your colours to the mast
Shall I go and ask the ones that are buried in France?
What has my background got to do with anything? "What has Rishi Sunaks background got to do with anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? " In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh come on Seb How British are you? What’s your family history? Have your predecessors been economic migrants/nomads? What makes you emotionally invested in this country? Come on laddie, it’s time to nail your colours to the mast
Shall I go and ask the ones that are buried in France?
What has my background got to do with anything?
What has Rishi Sunaks background got to do with anything? "Well, he’s the PM, I’m just a nobody whiling away what’s left of my life with other like minded, WOKE, compassionate people on a swingers website. Getting drawn into sophisticated political debate with some great minds when I really should focus on getting a shag. Ladies - any offers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/" Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . " Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? " Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life "Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I? This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard. Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man."I am genuinely concerned, we don’t want you to end up like Andrew Leak, hopefully one day you will realise that this obsession and confusion is irrational, from now on I will be ignoring your posts until you get the help you need. Good luck | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man.
I am genuinely concerned, we don’t want you to end up like Andrew Leak, hopefully one day you will realise that this obsession and confusion is irrational, from now on I will be ignoring your posts until you get the help you need. Good luck "There you go again, making offensive assumptions. You are going to ignore my posts - excellent news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. " Oh Seb that is disingenuous. You know words are powerful and you know you made a sweeping statement about Sunak not being British. You later, after much avoidance, clarified you meant emotionally or loyally British which are quite different. That was also after making an apparent “joke” that Jesus was born in a stable but that doesn’t make him a horse. You could have avoided the whole thing by instead saying “Sunak isn’t British” which is provocative and legally not the case, by saying “Sunak’s values do not seem to align with loyalty to the UK” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know Seb, it feels like you are having a bit of difficulty understanding how your posts read. I have no idea if you are just trying to wind everyone up, attention seeking or just genuinely not able to see that your posts are triggering but as you don’t seem to be able to explain your thoughts I shall bow out of engaging any further with you" That is the best thing to do, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know Seb, it feels like you are having a bit of difficulty understanding how your posts read. I have no idea if you are just trying to wind everyone up, attention seeking or just genuinely not able to see that your posts are triggering but as you don’t seem to be able to explain your thoughts I shall bow out of engaging any further with you" More good news as you clearly don’t understand the points I am making. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man."You are stereotyping someone based on the background of their parents and heritage. You have literally stated that because his parents were economic migrants his commitment to the UK is somehow suspect. His parents came here from former British colonies. His wife is also from a former British colony. Sunak was born and educated in the UK. He has lived and worked here and abroad. His parents live here (and have done so for sixty years) as does his immediate including his wife and children (who have never lived anywhere else). He may well fail the Tebbit "cricket test" too and support India some of the time. That is not "British" enough for you? What would need to change from that list to be adequately "British? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. Oh Seb that is disingenuous. You know words are powerful and you know you made a sweeping statement about Sunak not being British. You later, after much avoidance, clarified you meant emotionally or loyally British which are quite different. That was also after making an apparent “joke” that Jesus was born in a stable but that doesn’t make him a horse. You could have avoided the whole thing by instead saying “Sunak isn’t British” which is provocative and legally not the case, by saying “Sunak’s values do not seem to align with loyalty to the UK”" It’s not disingenuous at all. I made the statement that in my opinion he is not British so should not be PM. Other Fab users pointed out that as he was born here he is legally British. Fine, I accept that. A few of course automatically assumed I said it because of his colour and ethnicity as they like to think I am a racist. I am not. They were wrong but of course they won’t admit that. The ‘joke’ is actually quite funny. Old, but funny. How can anyone take offence to that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man.
You are stereotyping someone based on the background of their parents and heritage. You have literally stated that because his parents were economic migrants his commitment to the UK is somehow suspect.
His parents came here from former British colonies. His wife is also from a former British colony.
Sunak was born and educated in the UK.
He has lived and worked here and abroad. His parents live here (and have done so for sixty years) as does his immediate including his wife and children (who have never lived anywhere else).
He may well fail the Tebbit "cricket test" too and support India some of the time.
That is not "British" enough for you?
What would need to change from that list to be adequately "British?"I’m not stereotyping anyone. I have formed an assumption that as and when it suits he will at the drop of a hat and without a backward glance, leave the UK to wherever suits him and his family. Good for him, I don’t have a problem with him for doing that. I may well be wrong and he ends his days having been a brilliant PM whiling away his days in London & Hampshire. I very much doubt it don’t you? London is of course a fantastic place for wealthy people to live. Again, no problem he can of course do what he wants and what’s best. We all would if we could. Perhaps my problem with it is envy? It’s certainly not racism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man.
You are stereotyping someone based on the background of their parents and heritage. You have literally stated that because his parents were economic migrants his commitment to the UK is somehow suspect.
His parents came here from former British colonies. His wife is also from a former British colony.
Sunak was born and educated in the UK.
He has lived and worked here and abroad. His parents live here (and have done so for sixty years) as does his immediate including his wife and children (who have never lived anywhere else).
He may well fail the Tebbit "cricket test" too and support India some of the time.
That is not "British" enough for you?
What would need to change from that list to be adequately "British?
I’m not stereotyping anyone. I have formed an assumption that as and when it suits he will at the drop of a hat and without a backward glance, leave the UK to wherever suits him and his family. Good for him, I don’t have a problem with him for doing that. I may well be wrong and he ends his days having been a brilliant PM whiling away his days in London & Hampshire.
I very much doubt it don’t you? London is of course a fantastic place for wealthy people to live. Again, no problem he can of course do what he wants and what’s best. We all would if we could.
Perhaps my problem with it is envy? It’s certainly not racism.
"I imagine that after retirement he will likely split his time between India and the UK with a bias to where his children and grandchildren will be. You seem to have struggled to address the question directly though, as is often the case when you are asked to be specific. From the list of information that I have provided that generates your "assumption", what would have to change to make Sunak adequately "British"? Do add additional information as you choose, but the basic premise remains... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man.
You are stereotyping someone based on the background of their parents and heritage. You have literally stated that because his parents were economic migrants his commitment to the UK is somehow suspect.
His parents came here from former British colonies. His wife is also from a former British colony.
Sunak was born and educated in the UK.
He has lived and worked here and abroad. His parents live here (and have done so for sixty years) as does his immediate including his wife and children (who have never lived anywhere else).
He may well fail the Tebbit "cricket test" too and support India some of the time.
That is not "British" enough for you?
What would need to change from that list to be adequately "British?
I’m not stereotyping anyone. I have formed an assumption that as and when it suits he will at the drop of a hat and without a backward glance, leave the UK to wherever suits him and his family. Good for him, I don’t have a problem with him for doing that. I may well be wrong and he ends his days having been a brilliant PM whiling away his days in London & Hampshire.
I very much doubt it don’t you? London is of course a fantastic place for wealthy people to live. Again, no problem he can of course do what he wants and what’s best. We all would if we could.
Perhaps my problem with it is envy? It’s certainly not racism.
I imagine that after retirement he will likely split his time between India and the UK with a bias to where his children and grandchildren will be.
You seem to have struggled to address the question directly though, as is often the case when you are asked to be specific.
From the list of information that I have provided that generates your "assumption", what would have to change to make Sunak adequately "British"? Do add additional information as you choose, but the basic premise remains..."I suspect he is more likely to find work in California, probably in Big Tech. He is slick enough to fit in, with his metro-liberal opinions, has lived there before, and has expressed admiration for it. Just another one in the revolving door between liberal government and Big Tech, which has blurred into one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Downing Street is now occupied by a non dom He isn't a non-dom, and never has been, not fitting the criteria by dint of being British. After all the fuss, his wife is now also not a non-dom. he's not British .... Under British law, having been born in Britain, he's British. And if you're born a British citizen, you can't claim non-dom status. Think you’ll find that was an in-joke hence the wink. On another thread a regular poster claimed Sunak wasn’t British sparking a ling debate to understand what they meant. Ultimately it came down to “not British enough” and possible (a leap here) not having loyalty to Britain or British values. It was all a but confusing. It was not confusing at all. We have a PM who has no emotional ties to the UK. Oh Seb that is disingenuous. You know words are powerful and you know you made a sweeping statement about Sunak not being British. You later, after much avoidance, clarified you meant emotionally or loyally British which are quite different. That was also after making an apparent “joke” that Jesus was born in a stable but that doesn’t make him a horse. You could have avoided the whole thing by instead saying “Sunak isn’t British” which is provocative and legally not the case, by saying “Sunak’s values do not seem to align with loyalty to the UK” It’s not disingenuous at all. I made the statement that in my opinion he is not British so should not be PM. Other Fab users pointed out that as he was born here he is legally British. Fine, I accept that. A few of course automatically assumed I said it because of his colour and ethnicity as they like to think I am a racist. I am not. They were wrong but of course they won’t admit that. The ‘joke’ is actually quite funny. Old, but funny. How can anyone take offence to that? " Seb you are clearly not a stupid man but you are playing the incredulous game. The irony is that if you had said “Sunak’s values do not seem to align with loyalty to the UK” the very people who are arguing with you would most likely agree! Sunak is British. That is an inarguable statement. Sunak's values or loyalty to Britain is a totally different matter. And YOU know that! P.S. when it comes to humour, context and intent is everything. Just ask Jimmy Carr! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s your background then Seb? Very boring I’m afraid. We have traced our distinctive surname back to Brittany . That’s a nice thought as I love France. Are you British enough to be the PM? Absolutely But Rishi Sunak isn’t? In my opinion as I have expressed before, so no confusion. No, he’s not. Now , until Labour get in we are still allowed free thought and to have an opinion. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with me. We can (another Fab shock) agree to disagree. Ideally without the snide remarks, sneers , and assumptions of racism. Without any attempted clever word play, twisting of the truth then claiming I’m confused. Without your gang piling in with ageist remarks and even suggestions of early onset dementia. Still, if that’s how you get your kicks but what a futile & shameful way to behave/ Seb, you come across as a very angry and confused man who is obsessed with immigrants and their role in British society . Rishi Sunsk is British and is just as entitled to be PM as you are, to suggest he isn’t based on his parents being ‘economic migrates’ is ignorant or just plain racist. I think you need to seek help to try and curb this obsession or I fear you might do something you will regret . Again, but this won’t get through, no need for nasty assumptions and false accusations. Let’s just agree to disagree. Can you do that? Seek help Seb, your views have no place in a modern society , your 64, stop obsessing about immigrants and enjoy your life
Don’t be so patronising. And of course yet again, incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with immigrants, why would I?
This clearly doesn’t fit your odd agenda so no hope of you taking it onboard.
Your gang will love it of course, so well done. Big man.
You are stereotyping someone based on the background of their parents and heritage. You have literally stated that because his parents were economic migrants his commitment to the UK is somehow suspect.
His parents came here from former British colonies. His wife is also from a former British colony.
Sunak was born and educated in the UK.
He has lived and worked here and abroad. His parents live here (and have done so for sixty years) as does his immediate including his wife and children (who have never lived anywhere else).
He may well fail the Tebbit "cricket test" too and support India some of the time.
That is not "British" enough for you?
What would need to change from that list to be adequately "British?
I’m not stereotyping anyone. I have formed an assumption that as and when it suits he will at the drop of a hat and without a backward glance, leave the UK to wherever suits him and his family. Good for him, I don’t have a problem with him for doing that. I may well be wrong and he ends his days having been a brilliant PM whiling away his days in London & Hampshire.
I very much doubt it don’t you? London is of course a fantastic place for wealthy people to live. Again, no problem he can of course do what he wants and what’s best. We all would if we could.
Perhaps my problem with it is envy? It’s certainly not racism.
I imagine that after retirement he will likely split his time between India and the UK with a bias to where his children and grandchildren will be.
You seem to have struggled to address the question directly though, as is often the case when you are asked to be specific.
From the list of information that I have provided that generates your "assumption", what would have to change to make Sunak adequately "British"? Do add additional information as you choose, but the basic premise remains...
I suspect he is more likely to find work in California, probably in Big Tech. He is slick enough to fit in, with his metro-liberal opinions, has lived there before, and has expressed admiration for it.
Just another one in the revolving door between liberal government and Big Tech, which has blurred into one."He doesn’t ‘need’ to find work. Didn’t someone say on here that he’s just taken a 17 million dividend? I’m going to make a racial stereotypical assumption here, (this will trigger the gang) He will want to work, he will want to demonstrate an example to his children of the values and importance of working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dear god Pyrrhic victory by calling someone stupid Pathetic " Anyone know what this guy is going on about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dear god Pyrrhic victory by calling someone stupid Pathetic " Don’t feed the troll mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dear god Pyrrhic victory by calling someone stupid Pathetic Don’t feed the troll mate "Pot - kettle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently.
Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives.
"arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat?
Which part of the country?
"The left"
Get a grip.
If you don't understand the references, why involve yourself?"I understand there are references. I don't understand the who. You are one of the forumites who references me as 'pat' or 'hay'. It's therefore reasonable to ask you further about it. Don't you agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently.
Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives.
"arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat?
Which part of the country?
"The left"
Get a grip.
If you don't understand the references, why involve yourself?
I understand there are references. I don't understand the who. You are one of the forumites who references me as 'pat' or 'hay'. It's therefore reasonable to ask you further about it. Don't you agree?
"The Who are an English rock band formed in London in 1964. Their classic lineup consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist and singer Pete Townshend, bass guitarist and singer John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently.
Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives.
"arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat?
Which part of the country?
"The left"
Get a grip.
If you don't understand the references, why involve yourself?
I understand there are references. I don't understand the who. You are one of the forumites who references me as 'pat' or 'hay'. It's therefore reasonable to ask you further about it. Don't you agree?
The Who are an English rock band formed in London in 1964. Their classic lineup consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist and singer Pete Townshend, bass guitarist and singer John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon.
"Just discovered Google have we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The tories may be hopeless at times but think of the alternative from days day at university I was a follower of Maggie thacker I think you should ask for some money back on that University course! Plain rude
The irony of the person constantly trying to school others on grammar and spelling lolz!
As if they are 95!!! They would have been at university in 1945! Don’t think Thatcher was around to support then!
Doh!
Some people are beyond schooling! The time to be learning at school is 5 to 16 doh!
I never stated that the poster was 95. Still deserves respect, wouldn't you agree? Or does their admiration of Thatcher disqualify them from respect? And how do you know they weren't at university in a teaching capacity from 79 to 90?
I see inflation is 10.7% in eurozone and likely to increase next year. Ours should fall from 10.1%. Market chaos is over almost as soon as the turbulent Truss tenure ended. Ftse now up again at 7,186.16. The Tory infighting has reduced substantially and never reached the Labour levels when Starmer purged the anti semitic Corbyn element. But Nov 17 is approaching. If people can see Sunak has a plan to lead us out of the covid /Ukraine hangover, hopefully the honeymoon poll bounce will continue
Why did you change your profile name, Pat if you're just going to post the same stuff?
The addition of grammar pedantry is new though
When did correct grammar and spelling equal pedantry?
When it's corrected obsessively on a forum in a swinger's site.
That's fairly obvious, Pat.
In the same way that you're obsessed that I'm 'Pat'?
It's the most likely scenario as you arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed.
You display a similar, unshakable faith in the Conservative party's infallibility, although you are far more aggressive.
I will try to restrict my Pat related comments only to when you behave like a Tory fanboy. That is, however, rather frequently.
Aggressive? Glasshousery! But then anyone on the left brands people who dare to disagree with them with those kind of adjectives.
"arrived at the same time that Hay, previously Pat, departed" - arrived where? Who or what is Hay? Or Pat?
Which part of the country?
"The left"
Get a grip.
If you don't understand the references, why involve yourself?
I understand there are references. I don't understand the who. You are one of the forumites who references me as 'pat' or 'hay'. It's therefore reasonable to ask you further about it. Don't you agree?
The Who are an English rock band formed in London in 1964. Their classic lineup consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist and singer Pete Townshend, bass guitarist and singer John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon.
"Sides aching | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
