Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Windfall Tax on Energy companies to support her EPG Package she's borrowing £Billions to support, would have been a start.." No. They only seem to need to tax the renewable companies whereas fossil fuel companies should be given incentives to drill more... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE stated late this afternoon that gilt purchasing support would end on Friday and that there is a material risk of structural financial damage to the U.K. economy. The Government now has two simple choices that they will have to articulate in the coming days: 1) Not only reverse the tax cuts announced at the end of September but also increase the tax take quite considerably OR 2) Commit to yet more austerity cuts equivalent to, or greater than what we saw in 2010-2015 There really are no other options and either option will see a massive pushback on Truss and Kwarteng from even there own side of the House of Commons. We could conceptually be back again in the bad old days of the mid 1970’s and AGAIN the root cause would be Conservative ideology. Get these cunts out of office." Unless the OBR magic up a way to show that trickle down economics will start working after having failed previously again and again. Unfortunately, it's one UK institution that they have not been able to influence by placing a Tory donor or former politician in charge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how bad does a chancellor have to be before he gets the sack ?? " Depends who has control of the goalposts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? " No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful." In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed." Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful." Anyone that has worked in the public sector will tell you that the lack of funding and resources is a big part in them being inefficient. Everything has been cut back to a bare minimum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear." Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools?" You never mentioned the NHS 
Now there’s a wasteful organisation  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools?" The use of specials who are poorly trained (recruit them), rural policing processes, centralised emergency call centres are very inefficient. Ageing onboard technologies to treat patients at the scene, is inefficient. No national procurement process for police / ambulance or schools, very inefficient | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? The use of specials who are poorly trained (recruit them), rural policing processes, centralised emergency call centres are very inefficient. Ageing onboard technologies to treat patients at the scene, is inefficient. No national procurement process for police / ambulance or schools, very inefficient " So other than a lack of funding and resources how could you change that? Because that all sounds like funding issues? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? You never mentioned the NHS
Now there’s a wasteful organisation "Still the biggest purchaser of fax machines in the world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? You never mentioned the NHS
Now there’s a wasteful organisation
Still the biggest purchaser of fax machines in the world. "Unlikely given the NHS banned their use a few years ago  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools?" Never had any dealings with the Police apart from when they couldn't be bothered to turn up when someone drove into my wall (even though I had the car registration and a bit of the bumper so it would have been an easy win); or when they can't be bothered to prosecute HGV drivers for ignoring 7.5 tonne weight limits when I send the video evidence in. However from all documentaries I have seen, they spend too much time on paperwork, spend too much time as the sertvice of last resort when others don't do their job, and don't seem to have enough of a proactive approach to issues which matter to the majority (anti-social behaviour, burglary, theft etc.). Ambulance service again I have no direct experience of using them ever but they seem to spend way too much time unable to discharge patients due to bed blockers in the hospitals. This is a general NHS / care system issue. Hospitals are too often full of people who should have been discharged or should have gone to a GP instead but couldn't. That needs sorting. In terms of inefficiency, the NHS IT systems seem hopeless - the upgrade project didn't seem to work, systems are outdated and don't talk to each other, each region is different and notes can't be transferred etc. Also, too much money is spent on a few people - extending life by a short amount when it would be better spent improving the quality of life for more people. Schools (and other public buildings) are run way _oo hot - 18 degrees C is plenty hot enough but every time I have been in a school they are way hotter than that. I was in the local community centre last week and there was a wall of heat as I opened the door. The school IT systems were pretty outdated, teachers using old machines with the wrong software. Teachers also had to spend too much time chasing those who didn't want to be there. The local council appears to be the same from the dealings I have had. Outdated and slow IT, legacy processes, old inefficient buildings over heated, all leading to staff under performance. There is no good reason for public bodies to use proprietary operating systems (mainly Microsoft Windows) and office software. Open source systems can do the same job for less money and can run on the older hardware. The whole system needs a good shakeup to deal with these issues. Throwing money at it isn't the answer - the processes need to be changed to maximise efficiency. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laughable everyone criticising the government but unable to suggest and better options. Some posters on here need to start mixing with the less well off in society and educate themselves on what support is actually available. . Only a small minority of society live in the middle class elite bubble who look down upon people whose views differ to theirs. The last three election results confine their thought process to the dust bin. There are two more years to bring things back on track and gain another well earned election victory " See you now talking about getting back on track after abandoning another thread you started about how great everything was. You can't seem to break this habit off shit stirring and not answering any points you are challenged on and jumping threads. Totally weird behaviour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? Never had any dealings with the Police apart from when they couldn't be bothered to turn up when someone drove into my wall (even though I had the car registration and a bit of the bumper so it would have been an easy win); or when they can't be bothered to prosecute HGV drivers for ignoring 7.5 tonne weight limits when I send the video evidence in. However from all documentaries I have seen, they spend too much time on paperwork, spend too much time as the sertvice of last resort when others don't do their job, and don't seem to have enough of a proactive approach to issues which matter to the majority (anti-social behaviour, burglary, theft etc.). Ambulance service again I have no direct experience of using them ever but they seem to spend way too much time unable to discharge patients due to bed blockers in the hospitals. This is a general NHS / care system issue. Hospitals are too often full of people who should have been discharged or should have gone to a GP instead but couldn't. That needs sorting. In terms of inefficiency, the NHS IT systems seem hopeless - the upgrade project didn't seem to work, systems are outdated and don't talk to each other, each region is different and notes can't be transferred etc. Also, too much money is spent on a few people - extending life by a short amount when it would be better spent improving the quality of life for more people. Schools (and other public buildings) are run way _oo hot - 18 degrees C is plenty hot enough but every time I have been in a school they are way hotter than that. I was in the local community centre last week and there was a wall of heat as I opened the door. The school IT systems were pretty outdated, teachers using old machines with the wrong software. Teachers also had to spend too much time chasing those who didn't want to be there. The local council appears to be the same from the dealings I have had. Outdated and slow IT, legacy processes, old inefficient buildings over heated, all leading to staff under performance. There is no good reason for public bodies to use proprietary operating systems (mainly Microsoft Windows) and office software. Open source systems can do the same job for less money and can run on the older hardware. The whole system needs a good shakeup to deal with these issues. Throwing money at it isn't the answer - the processes need to be changed to maximise efficiency." And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding?" Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems." And who is responsible for that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laughable everyone criticising the government but unable to suggest and better options. Some posters on here need to start mixing with the less well off in society and educate themselves on what support is actually available. . Only a small minority of society live in the middle class elite bubble who look down upon people whose views differ to theirs. The last three election results confine their thought process to the dust bin. There are two more years to bring things back on track and gain another well earned election victory " I can smell horse shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Laughable everyone criticising the government but unable to suggest and better options. Some posters on here need to start mixing with the less well off in society and educate themselves on what support is actually available. . Only a small minority of society live in the middle class elite bubble who look down upon people whose views differ to theirs. The last three election results confine their thought process to the dust bin. There are two more years to bring things back on track and gain another well earned election victory " Btw, Liz Truss thinks the working class are lazy  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems." So how do you get enough police to investigate crimes when the government slashed numbers and budgets? How do you bring in a new IT system with no budget? How do ambulance response times improve when there is no money for additional paramedics? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? The use of specials who are poorly trained (recruit them), rural policing processes, centralised emergency call centres are very inefficient. Ageing onboard technologies to treat patients at the scene, is inefficient. No national procurement process for police / ambulance or schools, very inefficient So other than a lack of funding and resources how could you change that? Because that all sounds like funding issues?" Funding issues, look past them or not to blame them, what kind of view is that? The billions ploughed into these services and you are saying don't include funding issues? Example: How is no joined up procurement policies a lack of funding. It then feeds into old technologies not being replaced in some areas that lead to inefficient treatments at the roadside, leading to hospital admissions. A more robust and joined up procurement would mean greater purchasing power with equal capabilities across the country. National call centres, the decision may have been financial but that has happened now, so no longer about funding. They are inefficient at dealing and handling calls. The management of our services that we plough taxes into are mismanaged on a massive scale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? You never mentioned the NHS
Now there’s a wasteful organisation
Still the biggest purchaser of fax machines in the world. "The NHS haven't been able to buy fax machines since Jan 2019, although it's been reported that NHS Wales have recently purchased some. Fax machines were supposed to be phased out in the NHS by 2020 but there is still several hundred in use! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems. So how do you get enough police to investigate crimes when the government slashed numbers and budgets? How do you bring in a new IT system with no budget? How do ambulance response times improve when there is no money for additional paramedics? " Just to add, one of the mist wasteful aspects in the public sector (and specifically the NHS and schools) is the outsourcing of facilities management. Where once these buildings would have a caretaker and small team with a store cupboard and tools, now big outsourced companies are milking everything to make a profit. Instead of having a small number of caretakers on the salary books, these organisations are being fleeced with substandard products charged out at premium prices with admin layers on top. There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb! Now who was it that decided that the public sector should outsource? That’s right, successive governments. Don’t get started on “internal marketplaces” and “decentralised procurement”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This is actually scary to think about. Are any of our public services anything near functional right now? No, because they are inefficient and wasteful. In part, but also because they're woefully underfunded and understaffed. Deal with the waste and efficiency issues then the true picture on funding will become clear. Can yiu give some examples of how for example the police are inefficient or wasteful that doesn't boil down to a lack of resources? Similarly the ambulance service? Or schools? You never mentioned the NHS
Now there’s a wasteful organisation
Still the biggest purchaser of fax machines in the world. "How many did they buy last year?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems. So how do you get enough police to investigate crimes when the government slashed numbers and budgets? How do you bring in a new IT system with no budget? How do ambulance response times improve when there is no money for additional paramedics? Just to add, one of the mist wasteful aspects in the public sector (and specifically the NHS and schools) is the outsourcing of facilities management. Where once these buildings would have a caretaker and small team with a store cupboard and tools, now big outsourced companies are milking everything to make a profit. Instead of having a small number of caretakers on the salary books, these organisations are being fleeced with substandard products charged out at premium prices with admin layers on top. There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb! Now who was it that decided that the public sector should outsource? That’s right, successive governments. Don’t get started on “internal marketplaces” and “decentralised procurement”." The lack of a joined up procurement policy is so obviously wrong, it makes my head literally shake on its own | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems. So how do you get enough police to investigate crimes when the government slashed numbers and budgets? How do you bring in a new IT system with no budget? How do ambulance response times improve when there is no money for additional paramedics? Just to add, one of the mist wasteful aspects in the public sector (and specifically the NHS and schools) is the outsourcing of facilities management. Where once these buildings would have a caretaker and small team with a store cupboard and tools, now big outsourced companies are milking everything to make a profit. Instead of having a small number of caretakers on the salary books, these organisations are being fleeced with substandard products charged out at premium prices with admin layers on top. There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb! Now who was it that decided that the public sector should outsource? That’s right, successive governments. Don’t get started on “internal marketplaces” and “decentralised procurement”. The lack of a joined up procurement policy is so obviously wrong, it makes my head literally shake on its own " Indeed. Simple purchasing power! Not just that but when a bug supplier screws up for one area in the public sector (say a particular Govt Dept) they do not get penalised and continue to win contracts elsewhere. The tendering process should include past performance in other parts of the public sector! Again though, this inefficiency is politically motivated. It is all about “small state thinking”. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE stated late this afternoon that gilt purchasing support would end on Friday and that there is a material risk of structural financial damage to the U.K. economy. The Government now has two simple choices that they will have to articulate in the coming days: 1) Not only reverse the tax cuts announced at the end of September but also increase the tax take quite considerably OR 2) Commit to yet more austerity cuts equivalent to, or greater than what we saw in 2010-2015 There really are no other options and either option will see a massive pushback on Truss and Kwarteng from even there own side of the House of Commons. We could conceptually be back again in the bad old days of the mid 1970’s and AGAIN the root cause would be Conservative ideology. Get these cunts out of office." Well OP you might have a point or have you? Mid 70's you quote? Margaret Thatcher 1979 – 1990 Conservative James Callaghan 1976 – 1979 Labour Harold Wilson 1974 – 1976 Labour Edward Heath 1970 – 1974 Conservative On 7 February 1974, Prime Minister Edward Heath called a snap election. The February 1974 general election was dominated by the three day working week and miners’ strike as an issue: Heath believed that this was a politically opportune time to hold an election because he thought, broadly speaking, the public agreed with the Tories’ hardline stance on the issue of union power and strikes. This proved to be something of a miscalculation. Whilst the Conservatives won the most seats, they still lost 28 seats, and with them, their parliamentary majority. Failing to secure the support of Liberal or Ulster Unionist MPs, the Conservatives were unable to form a government. The new Labour minority government, led by Harold Wilson, immediately increased the miners’ wages by a whopping 35% following their election and the three day working week was brought to an end on 7 March 1974, when normal service resumed. Although this number seems big, it actually brought their wages in line with standards and expectations set out by the government commissioned Wilberforce Enquiry. Following their re-election, this time with a majority, in October 1974, Labour went on to increase the miners’ wages further in February 1975 when further industrial action was threatened. Whilst Labour’s actions brought the disastrous three day working week to an end, disputes between the government and trade unions were not permanently settled. In late 1978, strikes began again as trade unions demanded pay rises which the government was unable to give whilst simultaneously controlling inflation. Strikes began with Ford workers, and resulted in public sector workers also striking. Binmen, nurses, gravediggers, lorry drivers and train drivers, to name but a few, went on strike over the winter of 1978-9. The mass disruption and freezing conditions of those months earned this period the title of the ‘Winter of Discontent’ and a powerful place in collective memory. The 1979 election saw the Conservatives returned to power in a landslide victory, using the slogan ‘Labour isn’t working’ as one of their key election tools. The so-called Winter of Discontent continues to be evoked in political rhetoric today as an example of a time when the government lost control and it set the Labour Party back considerably in politics for nearly two decades. Well if you are going to tell a story about " Cunts" as you have put it, you might as well get it right. History is repeating itself they are all as bad as each other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb!" "Story" is a good word to use, since it didn't actually happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bring back Boris, Truss makes him look like a class act " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb! "Story" is a good word to use, since it didn't actually happen." It did but hey ho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bring back Boris, Truss makes him look like a class act "Given hos own party had lost faith to the extent he couldn't full key cabinet posts, yet people think this is a plausible idea (I've no idea of you were being serious but some certainly are) to solve just how bad the current PM and cabinet are is exactly why we need a general election if or more accurately when Truss is forced out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bring back Boris, Truss makes him look like a class act
"I'm not joking, Boris & Rishi Sunak wouldn't have done this. For all their faults, they did navigate an incredibly difficult few years. It's a shame Boris messed up, he only has himself to blame but at least he didn't trash the entire country like this pair of lunatics who can't grasp how wrong they are. At what point will Truss & Krazi Kwarteng stop digging the hole & desist? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb!" ""Story" is a good word to use, since it didn't actually happen." "It did but hey ho" So give us the details, so we can look it up for ourselves. A link would be nice, so that we can all see how right you were. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. " I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better." Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. " Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. " #inLizweTrust | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process..." It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. " The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome." . Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how bad does a chancellor have to be before he gets the sack ?? " I think she feels she was saving face ? that his credibility is blown. They have known and worked closely with eachother for years (who needs friends). As they say a week in politics is a long time ! She has failed to realise is her own credibility!!! Was txt a journalist friend last night and she feels Westminster is saying she will be by December ? The ideology was surely both of them. I am not a fan of either, but to thrown him under a bus so quickly shown how politics is ruthless and only for those with self interest will survive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"how bad does a chancellor have to be before he gets the sack ?? I think she feels she was saving face ? that his credibility is blown. They have known and worked closely with eachother for years (who needs friends). As they say a week in politics is a long time ! She has failed to realise is her own credibility!!! Was txt a journalist friend last night and she feels Westminster is saying she will be out by December ? The ideology was surely both of them. I am not a fan of either, but to thrown him under a bus so quickly shown how politics is ruthless and only for those with self interest will survive. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. " Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate " No mandate, no idea what she's doing and very forgetful in that she didn't mention once in her hustings that she would if elected trash the economy in one statement.. If polls are any form of indicated intent the ones for the Telegraph and Times spell Armageddon now .. In two years with Truss and her droll delivery of cliches and sound bites totally out of touch with the reality of the economy and the negative impacts upon many of the voting public very raw she and her party are going to be treated accordingly.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. " Erm… pat speaks…. Not really sense… but pat speaks! Anyone who has done political science will know that because the uk doesn’t really change the boundaries for constituencies unless there is a change in the number of seats… in polls labour’s vote has to be about 4-5% better than the tories to be in with a chance of winning a general election ( one of the weird quirks of FPTP) Labour win when they drift towards the centre, the tories can win from the centre or the right I hate to ever agree with Nadine Dories, but she said something yesterday that was spot on…. When they were talking about a sunak mourdant partnership she said that a small group of people can’t keep imposing leaders on the masses.. that is not democracy, that’s a dictatorship! We will give you one mulligan if thing’s go tits up!, but 2? …. a small sample of people made a decision, got it incredibly wrong, so now you want to choose again with a smaller sample of people making that decision! This woman may be in office, but right now she certainly isn’t in power! If you are going to change leaders again, I think them will need to get some sort of mandate from the masses… and I don’t mean 2 years time! What happens in 12 months if this isn’t working… change leaders again! It’s ridiculous!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Erm… pat speaks…. Not really sense… but pat speaks! Anyone who has done political science will know that because the uk doesn’t really change the boundaries for constituencies unless there is a change in the number of seats… in polls labour’s vote has to be about 4-5% better than the tories to be in with a chance of winning a general election ( one of the weird quirks of FPTP) Labour win when they drift towards the centre, the tories can win from the centre or the right I hate to ever agree with Nadine Dories, but she said something yesterday that was spot on…. When they were talking about a sunak mourdant partnership she said that a small group of people can’t keep imposing leaders on the masses.. that is not democracy, that’s a dictatorship! We will give you one mulligan if thing’s go tits up!, but 2? …. a small sample of people made a decision, got it incredibly wrong, so now you want to choose again with a smaller sample of people making that decision! This woman may be in office, but right now she certainly isn’t in power! If you are going to change leaders again, I think them will need to get some sort of mandate from the masses… and I don’t mean 2 years time! What happens in 12 months if this isn’t working… change leaders again! It’s ridiculous!!! " Could not agree with you more. Especially that she is in office but not in power. What happens when not if she is ousted ? Conservatives will want to still run the country. How many PM’s do we need ! before the people ie the one’s footing the bill get a say. Maybe some new rules/constitution is needed as we cannot have this happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Erm… pat speaks…. Not really sense… but pat speaks! Anyone who has done political science will know that because the uk doesn’t really change the boundaries for constituencies unless there is a change in the number of seats… in polls labour’s vote has to be about 4-5% better than the tories to be in with a chance of winning a general election ( one of the weird quirks of FPTP) Labour win when they drift towards the centre, the tories can win from the centre or the right I hate to ever agree with Nadine Dories, but she said something yesterday that was spot on…. When they were talking about a sunak mourdant partnership she said that a small group of people can’t keep imposing leaders on the masses.. that is not democracy, that’s a dictatorship! We will give you one mulligan if thing’s go tits up!, but 2? …. a small sample of people made a decision, got it incredibly wrong, so now you want to choose again with a smaller sample of people making that decision! This woman may be in office, but right now she certainly isn’t in power! If you are going to change leaders again, I think them will need to get some sort of mandate from the masses… and I don’t mean 2 years time! What happens in 12 months if this isn’t working… change leaders again! It’s ridiculous!!! " Absolutely!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Tories were sincere about putting the country first they would call an early election now.. But they won't.." They won't yes they should put the country first but a good analogy someone said on the radio yesterday. The Tories agreeing to an early general election is akin to turkey's voting for Christmas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Tories were sincere about putting the country first they would call an early election now.. But they won't.. They won't yes they should put the country first but a good analogy someone said on the radio yesterday. The Tories agreeing to an early general election is akin to turkey's voting for Christmas." Agreed, some of the polls give them less than double figures in seats if one where to be called now.. Even those figures would be wrong as faced with a wipe out some of their angry now core voters would really but they would be out of power, and for a while .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. " 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a friend who is so pro Tory it makes me sick. We try not to discuss politics as it ends up in an argument. Anyways. He's still blaming the last Labour government for the situation the country is in today and won't have it that the Tories are in any way responsible. Trusses speach yesterday almost off the bat she was blaming Putin for most of the issues. Say's it all really." If you look on here, this is exactly how the people who vote Conservative are. And why I am not excited by the prospect of another election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And non of this is as a result of years of underfunding? Nope - it is due to years of management incompetence, failing to see and therefore address the fundamental problems. So how do you get enough police to investigate crimes when the government slashed numbers and budgets? How do you bring in a new IT system with no budget? How do ambulance response times improve when there is no money for additional paramedics? Just to add, one of the mist wasteful aspects in the public sector (and specifically the NHS and schools) is the outsourcing of facilities management. Where once these buildings would have a caretaker and small team with a store cupboard and tools, now big outsourced companies are milking everything to make a profit. Instead of having a small number of caretakers on the salary books, these organisations are being fleeced with substandard products charged out at premium prices with admin layers on top. There is a specific story of one NHS Trust being charged £300 to change a single light bulb! Now who was it that decided that the public sector should outsource? That’s right, successive governments. Don’t get started on “internal marketplaces” and “decentralised procurement”. The lack of a joined up procurement policy is so obviously wrong, it makes my head literally shake on its own Indeed. Simple purchasing power! Not just that but when a bug supplier screws up for one area in the public sector (say a particular Govt Dept) they do not get penalised and continue to win contracts elsewhere. The tendering process should include past performance in other parts of the public sector! Again though, this inefficiency is politically motivated. It is all about “small state thinking”." I personally receive tenders for various size works. The whole process and management fees to companies involved is obscene. That is a large part of the budget gone in fees alone. Then I get a call for a squeeze on my price !!!!! Someone said earlier its needs the good ole local caretaker for small day to day jobs. An employed teams of professionals to sort out works without all the big fee paying to QS’s etc. The money wasted is abhorrent!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome." I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. " This is historically correct and factual | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate " I have read this six times as it is completely illiterate. I have an idea what you're trying to say but would advise we have a Parliamentary democracy. Unlike the United States, which has a presidential system of democracy and directly elects officials, Britain elects a Parliament. Each member of the British House of Commons belongs to a political party, and the party that wins the majority forms its own government and appoints a Prime Minister. A vote for an MP, or member of parliament, is a vote for a political party as much as an individual and the party gets to name its own officials. That means that when a prime minister resigns or is removed during a non-general-election year, the ruling party selects its next prime minister. This happened when Labour was last in power and Tony Blair handed over to Gordon Brown. Brown never 'won' a General election but what happened was fully within the rules. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate No mandate, no idea what she's doing and very forgetful in that she didn't mention once in her hustings that she would if elected trash the economy in one statement.. If polls are any form of indicated intent the ones for the Telegraph and Times spell Armageddon now .. In two years with Truss and her droll delivery of cliches and sound bites totally out of touch with the reality of the economy and the negative impacts upon many of the voting public very raw she and her party are going to be treated accordingly.. " It looks that way at the moment, but things may change. A week is even more so these days a very long time in politics so 2 years is an eternity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Erm… pat speaks…. Not really sense… but pat speaks! Anyone who has done political science will know that because the uk doesn’t really change the boundaries for constituencies unless there is a change in the number of seats… in polls labour’s vote has to be about 4-5% better than the tories to be in with a chance of winning a general election ( one of the weird quirks of FPTP) Labour win when they drift towards the centre, the tories can win from the centre or the right I hate to ever agree with Nadine Dories, but she said something yesterday that was spot on…. When they were talking about a sunak mourdant partnership she said that a small group of people can’t keep imposing leaders on the masses.. that is not democracy, that’s a dictatorship! We will give you one mulligan if thing’s go tits up!, but 2? …. a small sample of people made a decision, got it incredibly wrong, so now you want to choose again with a smaller sample of people making that decision! This woman may be in office, but right now she certainly isn’t in power! If you are going to change leaders again, I think them will need to get some sort of mandate from the masses… and I don’t mean 2 years time! What happens in 12 months if this isn’t working… change leaders again! It’s ridiculous!!! " You may think it's ridiculous but see above - it's completely within the rules and lawful. Take the date of 17th December 2024 and add 25 working days and this gives you by the law the date by which the next general election must be held. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Erm… pat speaks…. Not really sense… but pat speaks! Anyone who has done political science will know that because the uk doesn’t really change the boundaries for constituencies unless there is a change in the number of seats… in polls labour’s vote has to be about 4-5% better than the tories to be in with a chance of winning a general election ( one of the weird quirks of FPTP) Labour win when they drift towards the centre, the tories can win from the centre or the right I hate to ever agree with Nadine Dories, but she said something yesterday that was spot on…. When they were talking about a sunak mourdant partnership she said that a small group of people can’t keep imposing leaders on the masses.. that is not democracy, that’s a dictatorship! We will give you one mulligan if thing’s go tits up!, but 2? …. a small sample of people made a decision, got it incredibly wrong, so now you want to choose again with a smaller sample of people making that decision! This woman may be in office, but right now she certainly isn’t in power! If you are going to change leaders again, I think them will need to get some sort of mandate from the masses… and I don’t mean 2 years time! What happens in 12 months if this isn’t working… change leaders again! It’s ridiculous!!! Could not agree with you more. Especially that she is in office but not in power. What happens when not if she is ousted ? Conservatives will want to still run the country. How many PM’s do we need ! before the people ie the one’s footing the bill get a say. Maybe some new rules/constitution is needed as we cannot have this happening. " Agree she is in office but clinging to power. See above. The party can elect as many leaders as it wants between now and 17th December '24 plus 25 working days. There is a case for changing the rules as you suggest. Technically, Liz Truss can't be touched for a further 10 months or so, but those are internal 1922 committee Tory rules that could be changed at will. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the Tories were sincere about putting the country first they would call an early election now.. But they won't.. They won't yes they should put the country first but a good analogy someone said on the radio yesterday. The Tories agreeing to an early general election is akin to turkey's voting for Christmas. Agreed, some of the polls give them less than double figures in seats if one where to be called now.. Even those figures would be wrong as faced with a wipe out some of their angry now core voters would really but they would be out of power, and for a while .." Can you clarify this? It's not making sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us." If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a friend who is so pro Tory it makes me sick. We try not to discuss politics as it ends up in an argument. Anyways. He's still blaming the last Labour government for the situation the country is in today and won't have it that the Tories are in any way responsible. Trusses speach yesterday almost off the bat she was blaming Putin for most of the issues. Say's it all really." It was an unpersuasive, robotic performance. However, she is right that Putin has caused most of the turbulence in energy costs. The mini budget was ill thought through but was a well intentioned attempt to grow the economy after 12 years of flatlining, which followed the Labour government leaving a note saying 'There's no money left'. So there is some truth in your friend's view. The truth as ever lies somewhere in the middle? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. " I think most voters who switched to the conservatives don't care about the past. Mortgage payers are going to blame the slightly crazy seeming Truss for not being able to afford a holiday/gym membership/new car next year and they will vote her, or whoever replaces her out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a friend who is so pro Tory it makes me sick. We try not to discuss politics as it ends up in an argument. Anyways. He's still blaming the last Labour government for the situation the country is in today and won't have it that the Tories are in any way responsible. Trusses speach yesterday almost off the bat she was blaming Putin for most of the issues. Say's it all really. If you look on here, this is exactly how the people who vote Conservative are. And why I am not excited by the prospect of another election." What effect do you think Putin's illegal invasion of a sovereign country has had, if any? What effect do you think a global pandemic has had, if any? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.. Election results would tend to indicate that the Conservatives are a lot more popular and better than any other party . You can hardly argue against democracy. Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate No mandate, no idea what she's doing and very forgetful in that she didn't mention once in her hustings that she would if elected trash the economy in one statement.. If polls are any form of indicated intent the ones for the Telegraph and Times spell Armageddon now .. In two years with Truss and her droll delivery of cliches and sound bites totally out of touch with the reality of the economy and the negative impacts upon many of the voting public very raw she and her party are going to be treated accordingly.. It looks that way at the moment, but things may change. A week is even more so these days a very long time in politics so 2 years is an eternity. " With the economy in a ok place perhaps, the situation as you've accepted before on many fronts is pretty dire.. It was heading in the wrong direction before the political madness of the fiscal fek up and the negative impact of the finances of many.. Which even the most ardent Tory can't pin on anyone but truss.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. " History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.." 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. " That's historically and factually wrong.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. That's historically and factually wrong.. " That's bold. Care to provide evidence to strengthen your opinion to one of fact? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. That's historically and factually wrong.. That's bold. Care to provide evidence to strengthen your opinion to one of fact? " As the IMF said yesterday that fiscal policy must always be led by monetary policies policy and in the case of Barber’s and Kwarteng’s budget - they both risked inflationary outcomes at a time when monetary policy was trying to bring inflation under control. The eventual outcome of the Barber budget was the U.K. was less resilient to cope with external shocks and ultimately the oil crisis amongst other things meant that inflation soared out of control and ultimately the Labour Government that followed ended up with the begging bowl out. The reaction to Kwartengs budget was as bad as the reaction to Barber’s but history taught the Tories that “toughing it out” as Ted Heath did would not bring about any different result. This was an international humiliation because it was incompetence laid bare for the entire world to see and for which ordinary Brits will pay dearly for in the coming years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. " I'm no labour supporter. I think they're poor, and only offer a less shit version of what we already have. This current government is the most self serving in my lifetime. And they didn't create the war in Ukraine or covid. They used them to make the rich richer, at our expense. But I squarely lay Brexit at their feet. They can own that one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate. Where was the mandate for Gordon Brown ? John Major (1990) ? Theresa May (2016) ? Since 1900 there have been 29 holders of the office of Prime Minister, 17 of whom took office outside of a general election. UK voters don’t elect a Prime Minister directly. There also isn’t a requirement for the Prime Minister to have won a general election as a party leader before they come into office, or to stay in office. Voters select a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent their constituency. Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Monarch and stay in office as long as they can command the confidence of the House of Commons (or until the next election). This is usually the MP who leads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or who can unite a coalition of MPs or parties into a working majority. " She only has a mandate if she follows the 2019 manifesto. Deviating a bit would probably be OK, but creating entirely now policies and failing to follow the fundamental principles of the manifesto means absolutely accurately that she would not have a mandate. Hence the current, topical expression “who voted for this?” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate. Where was the mandate for Gordon Brown ? John Major (1990) ? Theresa May (2016) ? Since 1900 there have been 29 holders of the office of Prime Minister, 17 of whom took office outside of a general election. UK voters don’t elect a Prime Minister directly. There also isn’t a requirement for the Prime Minister to have won a general election as a party leader before they come into office, or to stay in office. Voters select a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent their constituency. Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Monarch and stay in office as long as they can command the confidence of the House of Commons (or until the next election). This is usually the MP who leads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or who can unite a coalition of MPs or parties into a working majority. " Brown should have called an early election May and Johnson did | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases "Pointless pedantry. You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage. Well done dodging | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging "Irony alert set to max | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging "You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully. Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers! Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate. Where was the mandate for Gordon Brown ? John Major (1990) ? Theresa May (2016) ? Since 1900 there have been 29 holders of the office of Prime Minister, 17 of whom took office outside of a general election. UK voters don’t elect a Prime Minister directly. There also isn’t a requirement for the Prime Minister to have won a general election as a party leader before they come into office, or to stay in office. Voters select a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent their constituency. Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Monarch and stay in office as long as they can command the confidence of the House of Commons (or until the next election). This is usually the MP who leads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or who can unite a coalition of MPs or parties into a working majority. She only has a mandate if she follows the 2019 manifesto. Deviating a bit would probably be OK, but creating entirely now policies and failing to follow the fundamental principles of the manifesto means absolutely accurately that she would not have a mandate. Hence the current, topical expression “who voted for this?”" Many will see it as totally absurd that a new mandate is needed to cut taxes and try to grow the economy. It was a case of too far too fast. She has not reintroduced the death penalty and banned drinking under 25. Some perspective needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate. Where was the mandate for Gordon Brown ? John Major (1990) ? Theresa May (2016) ? Since 1900 there have been 29 holders of the office of Prime Minister, 17 of whom took office outside of a general election. UK voters don’t elect a Prime Minister directly. There also isn’t a requirement for the Prime Minister to have won a general election as a party leader before they come into office, or to stay in office. Voters select a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent their constituency. Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Monarch and stay in office as long as they can command the confidence of the House of Commons (or until the next election). This is usually the MP who leads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or who can unite a coalition of MPs or parties into a working majority. " At last! Someone who understands the system | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. That's historically and factually wrong.. That's bold. Care to provide evidence to strengthen your opinion to one of fact? As the IMF said yesterday that fiscal policy must always be led by monetary policies policy and in the case of Barber’s and Kwarteng’s budget - they both risked inflationary outcomes at a time when monetary policy was trying to bring inflation under control. The eventual outcome of the Barber budget was the U.K. was less resilient to cope with external shocks and ultimately the oil crisis amongst other things meant that inflation soared out of control and ultimately the Labour Government that followed ended up with the begging bowl out. The reaction to Kwartengs budget was as bad as the reaction to Barber’s but history taught the Tories that “toughing it out” as Ted Heath did would not bring about any different result. This was an international humiliation because it was incompetence laid bare for the entire world to see and for which ordinary Brits will pay dearly for in the coming years. " Many see it differently and that Britain was ungovernable and a failed state. Inflation was out of control because of trade union pay demands. The dead remained unburied because of strikes. Inflation hit nearly 30%. That's 3 times higher than today. Rocketing unemployment. So desperate were Labour to keep your cash in the UK they restricted the amount anyone could take away ‘on holiday’ to £50. Every Labour Government has ended with their successors having to impose austerity measures to try to correct things. What is happening now with the Tories is unusual, but the idea running to Captain Hindsight will solve everything is for the birds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. 70s was a long time ago, and these matters you mention are valid. But absolutely nothing in comparison to how the Tory machine treats us. If you think going cap in hand to the IMF in 1976 is 'absolutely nothing' then I will respectfully disagree with you. We are presently in turbulent times, but the Tory machine did not treat us to covid and a war in Ukraine. In fact, the benevolence of the furlough scheme is one of the issues facing us hard at the moment, followed by a 2 year energy price cap. Labour has offered 6 months. History needs to be looked at properly and with the reasons why events happen, the Tories in 72 are more than partly responsible for what happened after which led to the IMF bailout.. 'more than partly' can only mean fully. I would suggest the Tories are far from fully responsible for the '76 bailout. Wilson from' 64 to '68 and '74 to '76 has his fingerprints over much of the gun. Barber arguably a minor accomplice only. That's historically and factually wrong.. That's bold. Care to provide evidence to strengthen your opinion to one of fact? As the IMF said yesterday that fiscal policy must always be led by monetary policies policy and in the case of Barber’s and Kwarteng’s budget - they both risked inflationary outcomes at a time when monetary policy was trying to bring inflation under control. The eventual outcome of the Barber budget was the U.K. was less resilient to cope with external shocks and ultimately the oil crisis amongst other things meant that inflation soared out of control and ultimately the Labour Government that followed ended up with the begging bowl out. The reaction to Kwartengs budget was as bad as the reaction to Barber’s but history taught the Tories that “toughing it out” as Ted Heath did would not bring about any different result. This was an international humiliation because it was incompetence laid bare for the entire world to see and for which ordinary Brits will pay dearly for in the coming years. Many see it differently and that Britain was ungovernable and a failed state. Inflation was out of control because of trade union pay demands. The dead remained unburied because of strikes. Inflation hit nearly 30%. That's 3 times higher than today. Rocketing unemployment. So desperate were Labour to keep your cash in the UK they restricted the amount anyone could take away ‘on holiday’ to £50. Every Labour Government has ended with their successors having to impose austerity measures to try to correct things. What is happening now with the Tories is unusual, but the idea running to Captain Hindsight will solve everything is for the birds. " from what I can see the electorate goes with "better the devil you know, the other guys are just as bad, etc" until it all becomes too much, switches sides, and then repeats. No new party comes in at "a good time". We need a different mindset in both electorate and MPs to make a difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
"It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make. Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance. As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent. As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this: 'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So if there is a General election there and labour is wins what is the expected outcome? Nothing... It will be the same. It's not going to change the current situation. " Here is a simple lesson in economics. If the majority of the people in the country have good jobs, and are well paid the economy will work just fine. One way of achieving this is to help the minority of rich people earn more money in the expectation that they will create jobs for the majority of ordinary people. Another way is to level up the country from the bottom and middle by making sure that the majority of ordinary people enjoy a good standard of living in the expectation that business will still be there because there is a majority of citizens (consumers) with disposable incomes. For some reason, people in this country have put with / accepted / even voted to enable the very richest in this country to throw them breadcrumbs for far too long. Labour will make a change in the next Government and that should be welcomed by the majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s have a GE then and put your theory to the test , Liz Truss doesn’t is any unelected PM who doesn’t have a mandate. Where was the mandate for Gordon Brown ? John Major (1990) ? Theresa May (2016) ? Since 1900 there have been 29 holders of the office of Prime Minister, 17 of whom took office outside of a general election. UK voters don’t elect a Prime Minister directly. There also isn’t a requirement for the Prime Minister to have won a general election as a party leader before they come into office, or to stay in office. Voters select a Member of Parliament (MP) to represent their constituency. Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Monarch and stay in office as long as they can command the confidence of the House of Commons (or until the next election). This is usually the MP who leads the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or who can unite a coalition of MPs or parties into a working majority. At last! Someone who understands the system "MPs of any political party are ected on the basis of their manifesto being implemented. In emergencies, aspects of these policies may need to be modified. However, completely changing almost every aspect of the policies voted on in a peacetime setting is not " the system". There is no mandate for any of these actions. Even less so when introduced in a manner that has significantly worsened an existing crisis in both the long and medium term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Conservative Energy Policy; 1; increase offshore wind farms (wind turbines)... green energy 2; increase R&D of Hydrogen plants....green energy 3; increase R&D of harnessing wave power again green energy 4; Increase North Sea Oil & Gas Production and Exploration including giving the go ahead for Rosebank and Cambo projects as well as 100 exploration leases. (well done, about time). 5; Go ahead for 8 Nuclear Plants to provide Nuclear energy for future decades although the SNP have put a block on one in Scotland so the whole of Scotland suffers. I am not a conservative voter and after their recent actions I could not / may not vote for them, But I fully support them covering ALL aspects of Energy and not putting all their eggs in one basket such as the SNP are doing." Actual policy: 1. Allow the continuation of offshore wind farms whilst increasing tax on renewables but not fossil fuels. Less green than it looks. 2. Increase R&D of hydrogen generation through renewable or fossil fuel sources. Less green than it looks. 3. Continue existing R&D of wave power at current rates. No change in tidal energy permits. Less green than it looks. 4. Increase North Sea oil and gas production with subsidies to create long-term stranded assets. Effect in short to medium prices will be negligible taking approximately a decade to make any difference. These assets will still be tied to global prices and accelerate climate change maintaining the geopolitical status quo. (Stupid and economically and scientifically illiterate). 5. Go ahead with the nuclear plants that they have had over a decade to start work on and have failed to. In addition: Allow and subsidise fracking which will have the same consequences as for the North Sea with the scientific data indicating that the potential of making a negligible contribution to gas production. Borrow money to pay the unearned profits of oil and gas companies without recouping through continued windfall taxes. Prevent continued expansion of solar power generation on farmland, or not, depending on which Minister is talking. Prevent continued expansion of onshore wind generation, or not, depending on which Minister is talking. No increase in grid storage funding which would allow the fundamental shift to full renewable power generation providing greater energy security and substantially lower prices. It is a massive shift in policy to support the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of the renewable energy industry without improving energy security or reducing prices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'"I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country "Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I. Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now. My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actual policy: 1. Allow the continuation of offshore wind farms whilst increasing tax on renewables but not fossil fuels. Less green than it looks." When you say "increasing tax on renewables" you actually mean 'reducing subsidies for renewables'. Those 2 things things are different. "2. Increase R&D of hydrogen generation through renewable or fossil fuel sources. Less green than it looks." Surely converting natural gas into hydrogen, a clean burning fuel, is a good thing. Shouldn't we be funding a technology that can do that? "3. Continue existing R&D of wave power at current rates. No change in tidal energy permits. Less green than it looks." No change in permits means less money being wasted. That's probably a good thing. "4. Increase North Sea oil and gas production with subsidies to create long-term stranded assets. Effect in short to medium prices will be negligible taking approximately a decade to make any difference. These assets will still be tied to global prices and accelerate climate change maintaining the geopolitical status quo. (Stupid and economically and scientifically illiterate)." We've done this before, there are no special fossil fuel subsidies. But even if it does take ages, and wastes lots of money, what's the problem. That money will all have been supplied by investors, who will be poorer as a result, meaning that the wealth gap reduces. This is a good thing isn't it? "5. Go ahead with the nuclear plants that they have had over a decade to start work on and have failed to." Fully agreed there. We need to start building right now, and not stop until we have at least 80% of our demand supplied by nuclear at all times. "Allow and subsidise fracking which will have the same consequences as for the North Sea with the scientific data indicating that the potential of making a negligible contribution to gas production." Again, that's all investors money being lost, not the public's. And if it turns out that fracking doesn't work in the UK, then we won't be adding to climate change will we. "Borrow money to pay the unearned profits of oil and gas companies without recouping through continued windfall taxes." Those fossil fuel profits aren't unearned. They employ a huge amount of people, and pay twice as much tax as ordinary companies. But, why would we borrow money to pay for oil? By the time the oil arrives (a decade according to you) we'll have nuclear power plants built that mean we don't need the oil and gas. "No increase in grid storage funding which would allow the fundamental shift to full renewable power generation providing greater energy security and substantially lower prices." Grid scale electricity storage would be a great thing, if a technology existed that could do it. I hope they are still funding general R&D to help us find this new tech. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Actual policy: 1. Allow the continuation of offshore wind farms whilst increasing tax on renewables but not fossil fuels. Less green than it looks. When you say "increasing tax on renewables" you actually mean 'reducing subsidies for renewables'. Those 2 things things are different. 2. Increase R&D of hydrogen generation through renewable or fossil fuel sources. Less green than it looks. Surely converting natural gas into hydrogen, a clean burning fuel, is a good thing. Shouldn't we be funding a technology that can do that? 3. Continue existing R&D of wave power at current rates. No change in tidal energy permits. Less green than it looks. No change in permits means less money being wasted. That's probably a good thing. 4. Increase North Sea oil and gas production with subsidies to create long-term stranded assets. Effect in short to medium prices will be negligible taking approximately a decade to make any difference. These assets will still be tied to global prices and accelerate climate change maintaining the geopolitical status quo. (Stupid and economically and scientifically illiterate). We've done this before, there are no special fossil fuel subsidies. But even if it does take ages, and wastes lots of money, what's the problem. That money will all have been supplied by investors, who will be poorer as a result, meaning that the wealth gap reduces. This is a good thing isn't it? 5. Go ahead with the nuclear plants that they have had over a decade to start work on and have failed to. Fully agreed there. We need to start building right now, and not stop until we have at least 80% of our demand supplied by nuclear at all times. Allow and subsidise fracking which will have the same consequences as for the North Sea with the scientific data indicating that the potential of making a negligible contribution to gas production. Again, that's all investors money being lost, not the public's. And if it turns out that fracking doesn't work in the UK, then we won't be adding to climate change will we. Borrow money to pay the unearned profits of oil and gas companies without recouping through continued windfall taxes. Those fossil fuel profits aren't unearned. They employ a huge amount of people, and pay twice as much tax as ordinary companies. But, why would we borrow money to pay for oil? By the time the oil arrives (a decade according to you) we'll have nuclear power plants built that mean we don't need the oil and gas. No increase in grid storage funding which would allow the fundamental shift to full renewable power generation providing greater energy security and substantially lower prices. Grid scale electricity storage would be a great thing, if a technology existed that could do it. I hope they are still funding general R&D to help us find this new tech." Sigh. I will address these points only so that others are not misled by you. 1. My description was incorrect. Subsidies for renewables were cut some time ago. Government is currently trying to force renewable companies to renegotiate the price that they are paid for energy, decoupling it from gas prices. This will reduce consumer prices but significantly reduces income to those same companies for their significant existing growth plans. It will reduce the speed and scope of renewable energy rollout. 2. You clearly do not understand how Hydrogen is generated from natural gas or you would not write this. The process generates considerable quantities of carbon dioxide with no indication that carbon capture and storage is in any way viable. To make any sense Hydrogen needs to be created using renewable energy. 3. Saying that permits to generate tidal energy would be "wasted" makes no sense if energy can be generated at low cost and environmental impact compared to the alternatives. Not increasing the very low levels of wave energy investment considering our coastline is also nonsensical. 4. We have done this before. There are specific, named, subsidies/tax exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production. The problem is the opportunity cost of encouraging spending on obsolete, damaging technology with a deliberate policy change that would otherwise be allocated to renewable energy expansion. This also curtails UK leadership in a new industry in favour of a dying one. 5. 80% nuclear generation is economically foolish and an arbitrary figure. Consider the investment cost relative to renewables and grid storage and that we would be largely dependent on foreign technology and a high price generation formula for delivery with a long term waste problem to still be resolved. Fracking argument as that for the North Sea. Money wasted in obsolescence rather than opportunity. The excessive profits of fossil fuel companies are unearned. They have increased due to market price rises due to deliberate restrictions in supply either for deliberate geopolitical reasons (Russia's war in Ukraine) or for profit (OPEC), not due to any improvement in efficiency or working practices. Unearned. The Government is fixing consumer prices but paying for the difference. The state is borrowing money (at an increased interest rate) to pay for these profits. This borrowing is paid for by all of us. This is a transfer of wealth from the public to private companies. A subsidy, which could be substantially or completely offset with a windfall tax. Shell has even suggested that the Government should levy such a tax. You do not seem to understand what "increase in funding" means. There are multiple viable options for grid storage which are in late stage, large scale trials. One of which, incidentally, is green Hydrogen generation. Your unqualified attempts at assessing them technically not withstanding. More funding means faster industrialisation and rollout. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. My description was incorrect. Subsidies for renewables were cut some time ago. Government is currently trying to force renewable companies to renegotiate the price that they are paid for energy, decoupling it from gas prices." Agreed. I thought you would be happy at the re-negotiation, as those companies are currently making huge unearned profits because of the high oil price. Surely they shouldn't be allowed to continue profiting from the UK's misfortune. "2. You clearly do not understand how Hydrogen is generated from natural gas or you would not write this. The process generates considerable quantities of carbon dioxide with no indication that carbon capture and storage is in any way viable. To make any sense Hydrogen needs to be created using renewable energy." I do understand how it works, but I didn't understand what was written above. Now that I do understand it, I agree. "3. Saying that permits to generate tidal energy would be "wasted" makes no sense if energy can be generated at low cost and environmental impact compared to the alternatives. Not increasing the very low levels of wave energy investment considering our coastline is also nonsensical." I would agree if tidal worked, but it doesn't. The environment is just too harsh and damaging to equipment. The world's first tidal station was built in 1966. Since then a grand total of 11 stations have been commissioned, only 2 of which produce useable amounts of power, and 3 of which have subsequently been closed. Tidal is one of those things that seems like a good idea, but the practicalities make it too expensive. Especially when there's off-shore wind available, off-the-shelf, at much lower cost. "4. We have done this before. There are specific, named, subsidies/tax exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production." There are specific, named, sections of the Capital Allowances regulations, that explain which of the measures are available to oil and gas companies. There aren't any exemptions that apply only to fossil fuel companies. "5. 80% nuclear generation is economically foolish and an arbitrary figure. Consider the investment cost relative to renewables and grid storage and that we would be largely dependent on foreign technology and a high price generation formula for delivery with a long term waste problem to still be resolved." I was agreeing with you earlier because I read your words as supporting more nuclear power. If you don't support it, then I was mistaken, and we will have to disagree. "Fracking argument as that for the North Sea. Money wasted in obsolescence rather than opportunity." But again, this is all money wasted by private companies and investors. Why does that bother you? "The excessive profits of fossil fuel companies are unearned..." Ah. Originally it was just 'profits'. Now it's changed to 'excessive profits'. I see. "There are multiple viable options for grid storage which are in late stage, large scale trials. One of which, incidentally, is green Hydrogen generation." Hydrogen generation is indeed the most promising method of storing energy, but there are still several technical hurdles to clear before we can start using it. The next in line is battery storage, which has been shown to work at medium-scale. But it requires large amounts of uncommon raw materials and is therefore expensive. There simply isn't anything else that's even remotely viable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. My description was incorrect. Subsidies for renewables were cut some time ago. Government is currently trying to force renewable companies to renegotiate the price that they are paid for energy, decoupling it from gas prices. Agreed. I thought you would be happy at the re-negotiation, as those companies are currently making huge unearned profits because of the high oil price. Surely they shouldn't be allowed to continue profiting from the UK's misfortune. 2. You clearly do not understand how Hydrogen is generated from natural gas or you would not write this. The process generates considerable quantities of carbon dioxide with no indication that carbon capture and storage is in any way viable. To make any sense Hydrogen needs to be created using renewable energy. I do understand how it works, but I didn't understand what was written above. Now that I do understand it, I agree. 3. Saying that permits to generate tidal energy would be "wasted" makes no sense if energy can be generated at low cost and environmental impact compared to the alternatives. Not increasing the very low levels of wave energy investment considering our coastline is also nonsensical. I would agree if tidal worked, but it doesn't. The environment is just too harsh and damaging to equipment. The world's first tidal station was built in 1966. Since then a grand total of 11 stations have been commissioned, only 2 of which produce useable amounts of power, and 3 of which have subsequently been closed. Tidal is one of those things that seems like a good idea, but the practicalities make it too expensive. Especially when there's off-shore wind available, off-the-shelf, at much lower cost. 4. We have done this before. There are specific, named, subsidies/tax exemptions for oil and gas exploration and production. There are specific, named, sections of the Capital Allowances regulations, that explain which of the measures are available to oil and gas companies. There aren't any exemptions that apply only to fossil fuel companies. 5. 80% nuclear generation is economically foolish and an arbitrary figure. Consider the investment cost relative to renewables and grid storage and that we would be largely dependent on foreign technology and a high price generation formula for delivery with a long term waste problem to still be resolved. I was agreeing with you earlier because I read your words as supporting more nuclear power. If you don't support it, then I was mistaken, and we will have to disagree. Fracking argument as that for the North Sea. Money wasted in obsolescence rather than opportunity. But again, this is all money wasted by private companies and investors. Why does that bother you? The excessive profits of fossil fuel companies are unearned... Ah. Originally it was just 'profits'. Now it's changed to 'excessive profits'. I see. There are multiple viable options for grid storage which are in late stage, large scale trials. One of which, incidentally, is green Hydrogen generation. Hydrogen generation is indeed the most promising method of storing energy, but there are still several technical hurdles to clear before we can start using it. The next in line is battery storage, which has been shown to work at medium-scale. But it requires large amounts of uncommon raw materials and is therefore expensive. There simply isn't anything else that's even remotely viable." 1. Investment Week "Energy Prices Bill: Government unveils price cap legislation Confirms de facto windfall tax" 'Critics have noted that while the revenue cap for clean power generators effectively mirrors the windfall tax recently imposed on the profits of oil and gas companies, fossil fuel developers have also been granted a significant tax break if they invest in new projects.' '"A price cap acting as a 100% windfall tax on renewables' revenue above a certain level, while excess oil and gas profits are taxed at 25%, risks skewing investment towards the fossil fuels that have caused this energy crisis," McGrail said.' '“That means bypassing Ofgem and the entire licensing and regulatory regime without any safeguards or time constraints and no consultation or appeal process for anyone – supplier, generator, networks – affected by any decision.” "Rees-Mogg accused of grabbing absolute power over UK energy industry" An executive at another large energy company said: “This power grab means that the government could control the network, governance, pricing, the ability to acquire assets and infrastructure. It’s nationalisation by stealth.”' https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/16/rees-mogg-accused-of-grabbing-absolute-power-over-uk-energy-industry#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16659313133722&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fbusiness%2F2022%2Foct%2F16%2Frees-mogg-accused-of-grabbing-absolute-power-over-uk-energy-industry 2. You understood how it works, except that you agree that you didn't? Doesn't matter, as long as it is now understood. 3. Your "research" on tidal power remains cursory and is limited to reinforcing your own view. 3% out of a potential 12% of UK electricity needs are met by tidal power. The UK is particularly suited to this form of energy. 'tidal power is still in its infancy and although expensive today, government support for tidal power may help costs tumble, following in the footsteps of offshore wind energy.' https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-hasnt-tidal-power-taken-off-yet/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16659320740717&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencefocus.com%2Fscience%2Fwhy-hasnt-tidal-power-taken-off-yet%2F Energy Monitor: The mystery of the UK’s untapped tidal power "14GW of UK tidal capacity is cancelled, dormant or stuck at an early stage of development" 'La Rance [France], a project still going strong after nearly 60 years, which has produced approximately 28,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity, equivalent to more than £3bn at standard electricity prices. This means it has paid for itself several times over. The cost of the electricity it produces is around €0.018/kWh, compared with €0.025/kWh for nuclear power, where France gets most of its electricity from. “We can expect a tidal barrage like La Rance to last 120 years at least, but it could run for much longer than that,”' You have not addressed wave power at all, but no doubt will absolute certainty after a cursory search. 4. Once again: 'Critics have noted that while the revenue cap for clean power generators effectively mirrors the windfall tax recently imposed on the profits of oil and gas companies, fossil fuel developers have also been granted a significant tax break if they invest in new projects.' 5. I support an increased proportion of nuclear power generation not 80%. That is economically non-sensical. That is what I stated. Again, "wasting" public or private money is, by definition, stupid. Government should be encouraging the most effective use of finite resources not their wasteful and harmful use. You can be as pedantic as you wish but "unearned profits" and "excess profits" as written are not the same as "profits" which you decided to read. Again, you are a displaying ignorance in your technical understanding of grid storage but feel confident in providing a definite opinion. Please stop. You can read about both flow batteries and CO2 batteries as well as all of the other options that are available and just require the seed funding to scale up. None of that provides you with knowledge. Just information. You are making the same argument that was made against renewable energy which is now significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. That at a point in time, at small scale it could not compete on cost and would take "too long" to become viable. Within a decade it has undercut the price of the entire fossil fuel industry due to both the acceleration of technology in a new field and simple economies of scale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I.
Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now.
My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances."Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to 'cruise' this poster directly, nor would I. I have however made an attempt to spell correctly, so 'nor would I' appears above rather than 'not would I'. EasyUK has now turned his fire on MrDiscretion XXX instead, accusing him of 'being pedantic' and 'displaying ignorance'. It is clear that unless EasyUK has full control of political posts, securing immediate agreement with what he says, the 'pedantic' card is whipped out and deployed along with other insults designed to stifle debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination for his braying essays. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I.
Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now.
My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances.
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to 'cruise' this poster directly, nor would I.
I have however made an attempt to spell correctly, so 'nor would I' appears above rather than 'not would I'.
EasyUK has now turned his fire on MrDiscretion XXX instead, accusing him of 'being pedantic' and 'displaying ignorance'. It is clear that unless EasyUK has full control of political posts, securing immediate agreement with what he says, the 'pedantic' card is whipped out and deployed along with other insults designed to stifle debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination for his braying essays. "Still going for the personal abuse without being able to respond to any points pertinent to the thread. If that's all that you have, then you cannot debate at all, it seems. Well done you
Although the expectation that somehow historic economic success or failure of any particular party is pertinent to today with different people, policies and global circumstances is somewhat moot, it is useful to actually look at the data:
"FactCheck Q&A: Which party has a better track record on the economy?"
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy
"Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research"
The Conversation. This will need to be searched for.
"GDP and events in history: how the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the UK economy"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/gdpandeventsinhistoryhowthecovid19pandemicshockedtheukeconomy/2022-05-24#eventa
Britannica: Britain since 1945
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Britain-since-1945 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I.
Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now.
My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances.
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to 'cruise' this poster directly, nor would I.
I have however made an attempt to spell correctly, so 'nor would I' appears above rather than 'not would I'.
EasyUK has now turned his fire on MrDiscretion XXX instead, accusing him of 'being pedantic' and 'displaying ignorance'. It is clear that unless EasyUK has full control of political posts, securing immediate agreement with what he says, the 'pedantic' card is whipped out and deployed along with other insults designed to stifle debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination for his braying essays.
Still going for the personal abuse without being able to respond to any points pertinent to the thread. If that's all that you have, then you cannot debate at all, it seems.
Well done you
Although the expectation that somehow historic economic success or failure of any particular party is pertinent to today with different people, policies and global circumstances is somewhat moot, it is useful to actually look at the data:
"FactCheck Q&A: Which party has a better track record on the economy?"
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy
"Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research"
The Conversation. This will need to be searched for.
"GDP and events in history: how the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the UK economy"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/gdpandeventsinhistoryhowthecovid19pandemicshockedtheukeconomy/2022-05-24#eventa
Britannica: Britain since 1945
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Britain-since-1945"I'm not engaging with you via threads. I have blocked you from personally messaging me. As regards 'personal insults' viewers can see your usage of 'pedantic' and 'ignorance' against MrDiscretionXXX. Own your 'personal insults' rather than attribute them to me. Your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. I've provided the evidence. They're therefore facts not insults
Finally, I'll choose the kind of person I prefer to debate with, if that's OK with you?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I.
Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now.
My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances.
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to 'cruise' this poster directly, nor would I.
I have however made an attempt to spell correctly, so 'nor would I' appears above rather than 'not would I'.
EasyUK has now turned his fire on MrDiscretion XXX instead, accusing him of 'being pedantic' and 'displaying ignorance'. It is clear that unless EasyUK has full control of political posts, securing immediate agreement with what he says, the 'pedantic' card is whipped out and deployed along with other insults designed to stifle debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination for his braying essays.
Still going for the personal abuse without being able to respond to any points pertinent to the thread. If that's all that you have, then you cannot debate at all, it seems.
Well done you
Although the expectation that somehow historic economic success or failure of any particular party is pertinent to today with different people, policies and global circumstances is somewhat moot, it is useful to actually look at the data:
"FactCheck Q&A: Which party has a better track record on the economy?"
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy
"Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research"
The Conversation. This will need to be searched for.
"GDP and events in history: how the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the UK economy"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/gdpandeventsinhistoryhowthecovid19pandemicshockedtheukeconomy/2022-05-24#eventa
Britannica: Britain since 1945
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Britain-since-1945
I'm not engaging with you via threads. I have blocked you from personally messaging me.
As regards 'personal insults' viewers can see your usage of 'pedantic' and 'ignorance' against MrDiscretionXXX. Own your 'personal insults' rather than attribute them to me.
Your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. I've provided the evidence. They're therefore facts not insults
Finally, I'll choose the kind of person I prefer to debate with, if that's OK with you?
"You can't "engage" as soon as you have to contend with actual data and you are not able to intimidate and mock. It seems that "debating" on those terms is a bit to difficult. You can run along. Last word is for you as you will not doubt need to have it. Don't think that I won't comment if your "facts" turn out to just be opinion though. Do enjoy your trolling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour would be no better. I live where there are no party politics, so can watch without prejudice & form an unbiased opinion. Labour politicians boil my piss, dunno why, they just do. Except Jess Phillips. None of Truss, Starmer or Davey are fit to lead their parties. Labour need Andy Burnham to wipe the floor with the Tories. I agree that Labour are woeful. But still would be miles better. Would they really though? Nrx1's excellent summary of the mid 70s Labour debacle (they had to go cap in hand to the IMF in 76) amid near 30% inflation, followed by Liam Byrne's (Labour) vile note to his Tory successor in 2010 that 'there's no money left' should tell you Labour are rather worse at stewardship of the economy. There are a number of global issues (Ukraine, covid, climate) which are affecting most major economies, but I grant you Truss and Kwarteng are seriously not helping matters. Claiming that Governments and parties of decades ago have some relevance to today whilst finding excuses for twelve years of the current party in power doesn't feel like a data-led decision making process... It's reality, which is more important. All things are the product of their history. Are you saying your early years from 76 are not important in making you who you are today? Just looking at the last 12 years is short sighted and unrealistic. If you want to know the future, look at the past. It's particularly terrifying when it comes to Labour. The Tories are however at the moment uncommonly imitating Labour in this respect which is unsettling, coupled with exogenous events like Ukraine and Covid. Hopefully, Hunt will bring a steadying hand. The Conservative party have objectively been no better than any other party. The Tories are not "immigrating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in. You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back. If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome. I said 'imitating' not 'immigrating'. Your thumbs / Autocorrect throwing up the things it does. It produces genuinely concerning turn of phrases
Pointless pedantry.
You were perfectly capable of understanding it, but this is the best you can manage.
Well done dodging
You'd like it to be seen that way, but really you can and must do better and it is correct to point out that you seem to struggle more than most with Autocorrect and /or basic English. Only the other day, you were writing 'Sorry, started writing before I finished reading' on a different thread. Of course I understand it, but not at the first attempt so you are wasting people's time having to read things again to understand what you are trying to say or because you have launched into some reposte or other without first reading things fully.
Feedback is a gift - treat it as such rather than fire back insults, the irony of which has not been lost on quite a few forummers!
Spelling and grammar : the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit
It's completely unnecessary to continually point out spelling errors unless your intention is to patronise and distract which , you would be surprised to learn, weakens any argument that you may be trying to make.
Reading through the rest of this thread where you are attempting to imply that the actions of politicians in Governments and parties of fifty years ago indicate how this generation of politicians will act and are motivated demonstrates further your attachment to detailed irrelevance.
As pointed out earlier, you will use any argument, however superfluous, to defend your position. However highly you regard yourself, the approach that you are trying to take is very transparent.
As you are so easily distracted by spelling errors due to your need to avoid responding to awkward points, you can, perhaps respond directly to this:
'The Tories are not "imitating" Labour. That is a genuinely amusing turn of phrase. The Tories are being the Tories that they are now. In fact, it was Truss' attempt to emulate Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson's attempt to emulate Churchill That have put us in the mess that we're in.
You will find ways to justify your chosen world view. It's pretty normal. There are still people who think that Brexit is a good idea and people still wanting to give Truss a chance because she's still new (after eight years in Cabinet). There are others who want Johnson back.
If you want to know the future do something positive to achieve a good outcome.'
I would think 'However highly you regard yourself' is more applicable to you than any other poster I've seen politically on here. I have blocked you so as not to receive direct messages of abuse simply for holding a different position to you. That is allowed still in this country
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to contact this poster directly, not would I.
Interesting that you have taken this approach at deflection though. Choosing to only cruise me personally and not address the points under discussion at all. Several times now.
My post above provides a more open narrative on how UK political parties may or may not have influenced the economy, none of which tells us much about current or future outcomes with today's politicians, policies and geopolitical circumstances.
Just for clarity, despite the implication, I have not made any attempt to 'cruise' this poster directly, nor would I.
I have however made an attempt to spell correctly, so 'nor would I' appears above rather than 'not would I'.
EasyUK has now turned his fire on MrDiscretion XXX instead, accusing him of 'being pedantic' and 'displaying ignorance'. It is clear that unless EasyUK has full control of political posts, securing immediate agreement with what he says, the 'pedantic' card is whipped out and deployed along with other insults designed to stifle debate. I have neither the time nor the inclination for his braying essays.
Still going for the personal abuse without being able to respond to any points pertinent to the thread. If that's all that you have, then you cannot debate at all, it seems.
Well done you
Although the expectation that somehow historic economic success or failure of any particular party is pertinent to today with different people, policies and global circumstances is somewhat moot, it is useful to actually look at the data:
"FactCheck Q&A: Which party has a better track record on the economy?"
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-qa-which-party-has-a-better-track-record-on-the-economy
"Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research"
The Conversation. This will need to be searched for.
"GDP and events in history: how the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the UK economy"
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/gdpandeventsinhistoryhowthecovid19pandemicshockedtheukeconomy/2022-05-24#eventa
Britannica: Britain since 1945
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Britain-since-1945
I'm not engaging with you via threads. I have blocked you from personally messaging me.
As regards 'personal insults' viewers can see your usage of 'pedantic' and 'ignorance' against MrDiscretionXXX. Own your 'personal insults' rather than attribute them to me.
Your posts are full of grammar and spelling errors. I've provided the evidence. They're therefore facts not insults
Finally, I'll choose the kind of person I prefer to debate with, if that's OK with you?
You can't "engage" as soon as you have to contend with actual data and you are not able to intimidate and mock. It seems that "debating" on those terms is a bit to difficult.
You can run along. Last word is for you as you will not doubt need to have it.
Don't think that I won't comment if your "facts" turn out to just be opinion though. Do enjoy trolling."It's not an opinion that your posts are littered with grammar and spelling errors, it's a fact! That's what I meant and you know it. So, above, we get 'not doubt' instead of 'no doubt' and 'a bit to difficult' instead of 'too difficult'. Not mockery, it's only feedback - you could try a Spellcheck facility? English is a wonderful language. We can all make the occasional error, but it's sad to see people repeatedly mangle it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. Investment Week "Energy Prices Bill: Government unveils price cap legislation Confirms de facto windfall tax" ..." Yes, that's what I said. The government are trying to cap the unearned and excessive profits being made by renewable energy companies. "3% out of a potential 12% of UK electricity needs are met by tidal power." Great! So all you need to do is tell me which tidal power scheme supplies this 3%, and I can go and find out for myself how wrong I was. You post the name of it, and I'll admit that I was wrong. "'tidal power is still in its infancy ..." It is? 56 years after the first one was built, it's still in it's infancy? "'La Rance [France], a project still going strong after nearly 60 years, which has produced approximately 28,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity, equivalent to more than £3bn at standard electricity prices. This means it has paid for itself several times over. The cost of the electricity it produces is around €0.018/kWh, compared with €0.025/kWh for nuclear power, where France gets most of its electricity from." La Rance is a good example. It was the first to be built, and it's still running today, providing 0.12% of France's power. But it required a dam to be built across the mouth of the river Rance, which has had significant effects upstream. After all these years France hasn't built any more. Why do you think that is? "5. I support an increased proportion of nuclear power generation not 80%. That is economically non-sensical. That is what I stated." Why is 80% nonsensical? France is at 70%, and everyone is praising their foresight in the matter. What is it that makes the extra 10% so foolish? "You can read about both flow batteries and CO2 batteries as well as all of the other options that are available and just require the seed funding to scale up." I have read about these things. A Flow Battery is effectively just a normal battery, with a hot-swappable electrolyte. They aren't terribly efficient, so we'd need lakes of electrolyte to make the power we'd need. The electrolyte is also corrosive, so it needs careful handling and expensive containment. They're useful things for some applications, but not a solution to grid-scale storage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1. Investment Week "Energy Prices Bill: Government unveils price cap legislation Confirms de facto windfall tax" ... Yes, that's what I said. The government are trying to cap the unearned and excessive profits being made by renewable energy companies. 3% out of a potential 12% of UK electricity needs are met by tidal power. Great! So all you need to do is tell me which tidal power scheme supplies this 3%, and I can go and find out for myself how wrong I was. You post the name of it, and I'll admit that I was wrong. 'tidal power is still in its infancy ... It is? 56 years after the first one was built, it's still in it's infancy? 'La Rance [France], a project still going strong after nearly 60 years, which has produced approximately 28,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity, equivalent to more than £3bn at standard electricity prices. This means it has paid for itself several times over. The cost of the electricity it produces is around €0.018/kWh, compared with €0.025/kWh for nuclear power, where France gets most of its electricity from. La Rance is a good example. It was the first to be built, and it's still running today, providing 0.12% of France's power. But it required a dam to be built across the mouth of the river Rance, which has had significant effects upstream. After all these years France hasn't built any more. Why do you think that is? 5. I support an increased proportion of nuclear power generation not 80%. That is economically non-sensical. That is what I stated. Why is 80% nonsensical? France is at 70%, and everyone is praising their foresight in the matter. What is it that makes the extra 10% so foolish? You can read about both flow batteries and CO2 batteries as well as all of the other options that are available and just require the seed funding to scale up. I have read about these things. A Flow Battery is effectively just a normal battery, with a hot-swappable electrolyte. They aren't terribly efficient, so we'd need lakes of electrolyte to make the power we'd need. The electrolyte is also corrosive, so it needs careful handling and expensive containment. They're useful things for some applications, but not a solution to grid-scale storage." With each response more of your quibbles fall off the table as they are just plane wrong. 1. So, unearned excessive profits do exist for renewables and fossil fuel. Renewables are having excessive profits capped but fossil fuel companies are having them paid by the state. Fossil fuel is receiving additional incentives to divert investment into further drilling whilst renewables receive no such advantage. All you need to do is go and actually spend time reading and understanding the energy industry. Looking specifically at wave and tidal energy generation as well as grid storage. You do not have any real understanding of what you are copying and pasting so far. A few months or years of experience should give you a reasonable start. We can start by referring you to the fact that the UK is second only to Canada on its potential for tidal power generation. Unlike France. 5. France built its nuclear industry under massive state subsidy which would be prohibitive for this country to even contemplate now. We are not adding 10% nuclear capacity to reach 80%. We are starting from 15%. The French are now investing very heavily in renewables because it is economically viable through private investment. More so than fossil fuels unless Governments subsidise them as ours has chosen to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Renewables are having excessive profits capped but fossil fuel companies are having them paid by the state." Both of them are having their excessive profits paid by the state, because the state is the main energy buying customer. But yes, the government is negotiating with the 'renewables' suppliers to agree a cap, while fossil fuels are just windfall taxed with no discussion. "Fossil fuel is receiving additional incentives to divert investment into further drilling whilst renewables receive no such advantage." That's not true. Fossil fuels can claw back some tax on capital assets if they are used for research to find new oil fields. Just the same as any company can claw back capital assets costs if they are used for R&D. "We can start by referring you to the fact that the UK is second only to Canada on its potential for tidal power generation. Unlike France." Well if course it is, the UK has lots of coastline. The UK has built 3 tidal power stations, one of which has been decommissioned. The remaining 2 have the capacity to provide 0.003% of the UK's demand. I notice that you haven't given me the name of the tidal project that you say is providing 3% of the UK's needs. It's an open goal for you, and would make me look foolish, so I'm surprised you forgot to address that. "The French are now investing very heavily in renewables because it is economically viable through private investment." Well of course they are, they already have the nuclear stations for base load and can afford to have unreliable 'renewables'. It's not the same here. If the wind stops blowing at night, we don't have the nuclear base to turn up to cover the deficit. That's why we need it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Renewables are having excessive profits capped but fossil fuel companies are having them paid by the state. Both of them are having their excessive profits paid by the state, because the state is the main energy buying customer. But yes, the government is negotiating with the 'renewables' suppliers to agree a cap, while fossil fuels are just windfall taxed with no discussion. Fossil fuel is receiving additional incentives to divert investment into further drilling whilst renewables receive no such advantage. That's not true. Fossil fuels can claw back some tax on capital assets if they are used for research to find new oil fields. Just the same as any company can claw back capital assets costs if they are used for R&D. We can start by referring you to the fact that the UK is second only to Canada on its potential for tidal power generation. Unlike France. Well if course it is, the UK has lots of coastline. The UK has built 3 tidal power stations, one of which has been decommissioned. The remaining 2 have the capacity to provide 0.003% of the UK's demand. I notice that you haven't given me the name of the tidal project that you say is providing 3% of the UK's needs. It's an open goal for you, and would make me look foolish, so I'm surprised you forgot to address that. The French are now investing very heavily in renewables because it is economically viable through private investment. Well of course they are, they already have the nuclear stations for base load and can afford to have unreliable 'renewables'. It's not the same here. If the wind stops blowing at night, we don't have the nuclear base to turn up to cover the deficit. That's why we need it." So the list shrinks some more, deleting the points that you have no response to. It is still riddled with lack of knowledge paired with your absolute certainty. So, for clarity, energy companies have made "excess" profits not earned from anything that they have done despite your denial. Correct? The Government is borrowing money to pay whatever charge these energy companies demand that we pay. Fossil fuel companies will have a one-off windfall tax that will partly cover this and also receive incentives to increase output. Renewable companies will not receive these incentives and the revenue cut will be permanent. How ever much you insist that that fossil fuel companies receive no tax privileges over other companies you are just wrong. There is a specific tax code for them and they received specific benefits in the last budget. "That’s why, within the levy, a new ‘super-deduction’ style relief is being introduced to encourage firms to invest in oil and gas extraction in the UK. The new 80% Investment Allowance will mean businesses will overall get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest – providing them with an additional, immediate incentive to invest. This nearly doubles the tax relief available and means the more investment a firm makes, the less tax they will pay." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-living-support/energy-profits-levy-factsheet-26-may-2022 "UK tax plan incentivizes oil, gas producers to pump more fossil fuels" '"Within the levy, a new 'super-deduction' style relief is being introduced to encourage firms to invest in oil and gas extraction in the UK," the government's Treasury said in a factsheet as it announced the plan on Thursday. It did not list other types of energy investments such as in renewables or electric car charging.' "But there is a gaping loophole. Oil and gas corporations can largely avoid the levy by increasing investment in the extraction of yet more fossil fuels in the UK," https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uk-tax-plan-incentivizes-oil-gas-producers-pump-more-fossil-fuels-2022-05-26/ Fracking is being encouraged with a vanishingly small likelihood of providing any benefit and the increased oil and gas generation will not help price security but will be detrimental for climate change. The investment will also be diverted from cheap, clean renewables. The reason why tidal power was not further invested in in France is because they do not have as beneficial conditions as we do and the majority of their electricity generation has been provided with state invested nuclear power. Wind and solar are much cheaper than tidal and wave right now for new investment with respect to France's coastal conditions. As you seem to think that a few minutes Googling allows you to comment with such certainty, find out names yourself. The UK cannot economically ramp up to the same level of nuclear power as France let alone to reach 80%. You do understand that, right? Other base-load power is needed and with cheap renewable generation, that will require grid storage. This will lead to significantly cheaper power overall as economies of scale make all of those options cheaper to install. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ben Wallace stepping in as PM would change the party for the better." The chap who voted against same sex marriage. Nice guy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ben Wallace stepping in as PM would change the party for the better." Why would he be "better" for the party? The comment is not about being better for the UK, I notice. That is where the Tory parties thinking is too, it seems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ben Wallace stepping in as PM would change the party for the better." Which policies of his makes you think that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the list shrinks some more, deleting the points that you have no response to." Interesting tactic, coming from the man that keeps ignoring my request to know the name of the tidal power plant that he claims supplies 3% of the UK's power. Let's see if he ignores it again. "So, for clarity, energy companies have made "excess" profits not earned from anything that they have done despite your denial. Correct?" I don't recall denying it, but it's true, some fossil fuel, and some 'renewables', companies have made excess profits recently. Not all of them, but some. "How ever much you insist that that fossil fuel companies receive no tax privileges over other companies you are just wrong. There is a specific tax code for them and they received specific benefits in the last budget." Well we can solve this easily then. You tell me one benefit the fossil fuel industry gets, that isn't available to all other industries, and I'll have to admit that you're right. Saying "prospecting for new oil fields gets a named benefit" isn't going to count, because that's part of the R&D section, and R&D is available to all companies. "The new 80% Investment Allowance will mean businesses will overall get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest – providing them with an additional, immediate incentive to invest." This proposal was made on Thursday, so it's probably been cancelled by now, and it'll be back again by the time you get to reply. But if it ever does make it to legislation, I will agree with you that fossil fuels do then get a tax incentive (though I won't go as far as calling it a subsidy). "Fracking is being encouraged with a vanishingly small likelihood of providing any benefit and the increased oil and gas generation will not help price security but will be detrimental for climate change." You can't have it both ways. Either it won't work and therefore won't cause any further climate damage, or it will damage the environment because it produces lots and lots of gas. Pick one and stick to it. "The reason why tidal power was not further invested in in France is because they do not have as beneficial conditions as we do " Sounds like you know what you're talking about. So what conditions is it that France doesn't have, and the UK does? Why aren't we building new tidal power projects in the UK? "Other base-load power is needed and with cheap renewable generation, that will require grid storage." No. Base-load power is power that can be relied on 24/7. Like nuclear, or gas. We can turn it up or down as required, but it's always available. Renewables don't count as base-load because they're not always available. Adding storage to cover the gaps doesn't make them base-load. There is of course the possibility that there won't be enough gas to go around this winter, which might knock gas off the base-load list, but we can worry about that if it comes to it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the list shrinks some more, deleting the points that you have no response to. Interesting tactic, coming from the man that keeps ignoring my request to know the name of the tidal power plant that he claims supplies 3% of the UK's power. Let's see if he ignores it again. So, for clarity, energy companies have made "excess" profits not earned from anything that they have done despite your denial. Correct? I don't recall denying it, but it's true, some fossil fuel, and some 'renewables', companies have made excess profits recently. Not all of them, but some. How ever much you insist that that fossil fuel companies receive no tax privileges over other companies you are just wrong. There is a specific tax code for them and they received specific benefits in the last budget. Well we can solve this easily then. You tell me one benefit the fossil fuel industry gets, that isn't available to all other industries, and I'll have to admit that you're right. Saying "prospecting for new oil fields gets a named benefit" isn't going to count, because that's part of the R&D section, and R&D is available to all companies. The new 80% Investment Allowance will mean businesses will overall get a 91p tax saving for every £1 they invest – providing them with an additional, immediate incentive to invest. This proposal was made on Thursday, so it's probably been cancelled by now, and it'll be back again by the time you get to reply. But if it ever does make it to legislation, I will agree with you that fossil fuels do then get a tax incentive (though I won't go as far as calling it a subsidy). Fracking is being encouraged with a vanishingly small likelihood of providing any benefit and the increased oil and gas generation will not help price security but will be detrimental for climate change. You can't have it both ways. Either it won't work and therefore won't cause any further climate damage, or it will damage the environment because it produces lots and lots of gas. Pick one and stick to it. The reason why tidal power was not further invested in in France is because they do not have as beneficial conditions as we do Sounds like you know what you're talking about. So what conditions is it that France doesn't have, and the UK does? Why aren't we building new tidal power projects in the UK? Other base-load power is needed and with cheap renewable generation, that will require grid storage. No. Base-load power is power that can be relied on 24/7. Like nuclear, or gas. We can turn it up or down as required, but it's always available. Renewables don't count as base-load because they're not always available. Adding storage to cover the gaps doesn't make them base-load. There is of course the possibility that there won't be enough gas to go around this winter, which might knock gas off the base-load list, but we can worry about that if it comes to it " It's not a tactic. Learn how to use Google, then read a number of articles and studies. You'll get there. It's also not the point of this weird cul-de-sac of a discussion. Why would that detail be so important to anyone unless they desperately needed to claim some sort of a micro-victory having been so verbosely certain in their errors? You right so much nonsense with such certainty it's not surprising you forget. Your words: "Those fossil fuel profits aren't unearned." Are excessive profits "earned"? From a war in Ukraine that they had no influence on whatsoever? Unless you mean the deliberate opportunism of reducing oil production to raise prices, of course? The ENTIRE point of the response that you decided to jump in on is that the UK energy "policy" has failed to invest in one of our major energy assets in preference to fossil fuels. An asset that France is not geographically suited to but still managed to make a success of decades ago. We went through a long thread, which you have no doubt forgotten, where I literally showed you the oil and gas specific legislation with the additional subsidies. Prospecting is NOT the same as R&D. Why not look it up? They get what every other company can claim plus additional industry-specific benefits. That's why they have their own specific legislation! An industry receiving a benefit that another doesn't is a state sponsored advantage. Don't call it a subsidy but it is as pedantic a splitting of hairs as is possible to manage. The Energy Profits levy has Royal ascent and is not being repealed. I am not trying to have anything "both ways" on fracking. Remember that while explanation about opportunity cost? If you are spending on a useless project to specifically develop for a harmful product instead of spending it on something able replace current emissions then you have increased the damage being caused. What small quantity that is pumped will be harmful, as will accidental releases, as will water and soil pollution. Long Duration Energy Storage is base load as it can fill generation gaps at any point for long periods. You don't generate the power at the point of use as you do now. You store it for use at any point in time. You can store it in the summer for use in the winter. You could store nuclear energy in the same way. It's a completely different use case. I don't know why you are so determined to make a point about a topic you clearly don't know much about, but please stop now and read. Read a lot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a tactic." So you're not going to admit that you were wrong when you said "3% out of a potential 12% of UK electricity needs are met by tidal power". Let's pretend that you didn't say that. "Your words: "Those fossil fuel profits aren't unearned."" Ah, yes. You were talking about the oil companies' "unearned profits", and I thought that you were trying to make the point that oil companies don't have to do any work to just suck the stuff out of the ground. I see now that by 'unearned profits' you meant 'excess profits', so my reply probably looked a bit odd to you. If you re-read them, they might make more sense now. "We went through a long thread, which you have no doubt forgotten, where I literally showed you the oil and gas specific legislation with the additional subsidies. Prospecting is NOT the same as R&D." I remember it well. You were misquoting chunks of the Oil and Gas Tax Manual. Here's the section where a high court judge says that prospecting is the same as R&D. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/oil-taxation-manual/ot26005 "Long Duration Energy Storage is base load as it can fill generation gaps at any point for long periods." Well if anyone else is following this tedious discussion, I encourage them to look up the definition of base-load, and see for themselves if renewables and some sort of storage counts as base-load. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So So what conditions is it that France doesn't have, and the UK does? Why aren't we building new tidal power projects in the UK? " I'd suggest that many parts of the UK have higher tidal range than the French coast which would allow for more powerful hydro systems based on flow of water into and out of man made lagoons rather than unpredictable wave power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So So what conditions is it that France doesn't have, and the UK does? Why aren't we building new tidal power projects in the UK?" "I'd suggest that many parts of the UK have higher tidal range than the French coast which would allow for more powerful hydro systems based on flow of water into and out of man made lagoons rather than unpredictable wave power." You're absolutely right, the UK does have a higher tidal range. That's the basis behind proposals like the Severn Barrage, which would utilise a massive area and be ideal for tidal power. Why hasn't it been built? Partly due to environmental concerns, because it would destroy a huge amount of mudflats and the associated wildlife. Partly due to the power only being generated at times when the tide is moving. Since we can't store that power, there has to be a conventional station to cover the slack periods. And if you have to build a backup power station anyway, what's the point of building the barrage? The economics might change if the government ever seriously looks at going green. But for the past few decades it just hasn't made sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not a tactic. So you're not going to admit that you were wrong when you said "3% out of a potential 12% of UK electricity needs are met by tidal power". Let's pretend that you didn't say that. Your words: "Those fossil fuel profits aren't unearned." Ah, yes. You were talking about the oil companies' "unearned profits", and I thought that you were trying to make the point that oil companies don't have to do any work to just suck the stuff out of the ground. I see now that by 'unearned profits' you meant 'excess profits', so my reply probably looked a bit odd to you. If you re-read them, they might make more sense now. We went through a long thread, which you have no doubt forgotten, where I literally showed you the oil and gas specific legislation with the additional subsidies. Prospecting is NOT the same as R&D. I remember it well. You were misquoting chunks of the Oil and Gas Tax Manual. Here's the section where a high court judge says that prospecting is the same as R&D. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/oil-taxation-manual/ot26005 Long Duration Energy Storage is base load as it can fill generation gaps at any point for long periods. Well if anyone else is following this tedious discussion, I encourage them to look up the definition of base-load, and see for themselves if renewables and some sort of storage counts as base-load." I made this point: 3. Continue existing R&D of wave power at current rates. No change in tidal energy permits. Less green than it looks. How does asking the percentage of tidal power currently generated address this point? A smaller number makes a stronger case for increased investment in a country with such strong potential. You seem desperate for a "gotcha" for some reason. Nice simple link that I can post directly so that you can have some quiet time. "Although wave and tidal power have the potential to deliver 20 per cent of the UK’s electricity needs, we receive less than 3 per cent of our energy in this way." https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-hasnt-tidal-power-taken-off-yet/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16663040444082&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencefocus.com%2Fscience%2Fwhy-hasnt-tidal-power-taken-off-yet%2F Your replies about unearned oil company profits demonstrate that you read what you wanted to read. By definition I didn't "misquote" anything by writing the same words in the same order with no additions or deletions. Your desperation to try to deny that the oil and gas industry receives huge tax breaks that other industries do not is remarkable to have spent so long to seek out one obscure legal text which literally states: "It may appear slightly odd that exploration for oil under the sea should be regarded as “scientific research”, but it was common ground that it is accepted as being such for the purposes of the provision." Essentially that it's weird and unexpected but it has been decided that it is so. It is a special case for oil and gas companies get an additional allowance that no other industry gets. You understand that, right? They also receive relief for all other actual R&D activities. I'll allow you to reboot and repeat yourself again. This is just one item. For decommissioning oil companies do not receive tax relief, it receives a refund of previously paid tax. The Government depends on the definition of subsidy meaning that the customer receives no benefit to justify the additional incentives that the oil industry receives to reduce their costs. Baseload power is the minimum amount of electricity required by the grid. If adequate energy has been stored and can be released to the grid to meet this figure when there is no other source of energy, then base load power is being met. So, yes, they can provide base load energy. It really is that simple. You could explain how this address the actual point that I made: No increase in grid storage funding which would allow the fundamental shift to full renewable power generation providing greater energy security and substantially lower prices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seriously I'll keep this plain and simple. Name 1 lithium mine the UK has that can sustain the population aspirations... Guess what it's 0 . Yet the goofs here says otherwise. Tell me I am wrong.. energy independence requires what is available in your own country. Pie dreams to think otherwise." prove me wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seriously I'll keep this plain and simple. Name 1 lithium mine the UK has that can sustain the population aspirations... Guess what it's 0 . Yet the goofs here says otherwise. Tell me I am wrong.. energy independence requires what is available in your own country. Pie dreams to think otherwise." Name 1 thundercat that's green, pink and 50 feet tall. You can't, can you? Hah | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick a Pm so I do not have to adjust my 401k everyday.  "9pm. There ya go. That was easy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick a Pm so I do not have to adjust my 401k everyday.
9pm. There ya go. That was easy."lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seriously I'll keep this plain and simple. Name 1 lithium mine the UK has that can sustain the population aspirations... Guess what it's 0 . Yet the goofs here says otherwise. Tell me I am wrong." If you mean a mine that can supply all of the UK's needs right now, then you're right. But if you mean a mine that potentially could supply all of the UK's needs at some point in the future, then Cornish Lithium's mine in St Dennis is looking promising. There's also British Lithium's site near St Austell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"seriously I'll keep this plain and simple. Name 1 lithium mine the UK has that can sustain the population aspirations... Guess what it's 0 . Yet the goofs here says otherwise. Tell me I am wrong.. energy independence requires what is available in your own country. Pie dreams to think otherwise." Enumerate the amount of gas and oil that the UK imports to meet its requirements and which regimes dominate their supply. You've blown your own argument. Identify the amount of long-term damage burning this causes. Name the other battery chemistries that are entering use. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
