FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What is the "labour party"?
What is the "labour party"?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners" They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. | |||
" They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power." In that case, why are the Tories not just "Labour-lite"? Or are they? | |||
" They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. In that case, why are the Tories not just "Labour-lite"? Or are they?" I wouldn't say so. Tories are fairly open with their contempt for ordinary British people, their nepotism, the policies that serve only the very richest etc. Labour thow a few bones our way from time to time, but ultimately serve the same elements of society. | |||
| |||
"Both parties are liberal-lite. The Tories leant towards the nastier more selfish side of it. Too soon to judge what this version of Labour will lean towards. This forum needs a name change though. 'We hate Labour' or something similar."   | |||
"Both parties are liberal-lite. The Tories leant towards the nastier more selfish side of it. Too soon to judge what this version of Labour will lean towards. This forum needs a name change though. 'We hate Labour' or something similar." The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled. Bloody RRs!  | |||
"The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled." And you have no problem with all the hate that gets directed at the Tories? There seems to be less of it now, but it's still present, and considerably more vitriolic. | |||
"The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled. And you have no problem with all the hate that gets directed at the Tories? There seems to be less of it now, but it's still present, and considerably more vitriolic." You must be thinking of a different forum. This is the anyone-a-micron-to-the-left-of-HermanGoring is a loony-left extremist section. Seriously though, the forum used to be the "what about Labour" forum, it's now the 'Starmer is a dirty old man and a nonce' forum. Welcome to Fab-RightWing-Swingers. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled. And you have no problem with all the hate that gets directed at the Tories? There seems to be less of it now, but it's still present, and considerably more vitriolic." Probably is still present though as Labour are now in office I would expect their actions to get more attention. Just like the Tories when they were in office. Labour seem to still be adjusting to the fact that they are in office and it is their actions that are front and centre to be scrutinised. Much safer in opposition when you can just slate the government as opposed to being the government and actually putting plans into action and being judged | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners" we will know more after the budget at the end of October but it is not looking good. just saying its not austerity is not enough , | |||
| |||
"The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled. And you have no problem with all the hate that gets directed at the Tories? There seems to be less of it now, but it's still present, and considerably more vitriolic." 14 years and the country is in the shit, ie tories deserve the vitriol. 12 weeks of labour, boxes probably still unpacked, but Labour is getting a roasting, repeatedly | |||
What is particularly memorable was the cheers and parroting of the propaganda machine that implanted the slogan, the adults are back in charge, oh bless. | |||
"Is it just me or are all the current political optuons a bunch of inept grifters who don't give two shits about anyone but themselves? Certainly feels that they're all terrible but for different reasons. " You’re spot on sadly | |||
| |||
"The content of the forum is so same ol same old by the righteous righties, I cba to make my usual tuppence worth of opinions. So hate filled. And you have no problem with all the hate that gets directed at the Tories? There seems to be less of it now, but it's still present, and considerably more vitriolic. 14 years and the country is in the shit, ie tories deserve the vitriol. 12 weeks of labour, boxes probably still unpacked, but Labour is getting a roasting, repeatedly" 14 years of Tory shite, absolutely but the labour party have had 14 years to prepare and I'm seeing sweet FA. | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic." Quite agree...but you'll get slagged off for saying it | |||
"This government must be a huge disappointment for labour supporters, it is reflected in here daily with calls to give them a chance, and totally ignoring the balls ups
What is particularly memorable was the cheers and parroting of the propaganda machine that implanted the slogan, the adults are back in charge, oh bless."I think I’m repeating myself in saying, by far the unsexiest thing on here is RW blokes of a certain age having themselves a mass RW reach-around 🥴 Unseemly. | |||
"Both parties are liberal-lite. The Tories leant towards the nastier more selfish side of it. Too soon to judge what this version of Labour will lean towards. This forum needs a name change though. 'We hate Labour' or something similar. "Good call or maybe "it's the tories fault, it's all the tories fault, labour are great and can do no wrong" Bit long I know | |||
"This government must be a huge disappointment for labour supporters, it is reflected in here daily with calls to give them a chance, and totally ignoring the balls ups
What is particularly memorable was the cheers and parroting of the propaganda machine that implanted the slogan, the adults are back in charge, oh bless.
I think I’m repeating myself in saying, by far the unsexiest thing on here is RW blokes of a certain age having themselves a mass RW reach-around 🥴
Unseemly."Anything to say about labours pitiful attempts at governing the country, rhetorical question of course | |||
| |||
| |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left "Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really? | |||
| |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left "This 'tax the rich' stuff from Labour is naïve - the sort of policies that come out of a Year 11 discussion group. What you get instead is 'levelling down' and a shrinking economy. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?"Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true. We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce". Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU. Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu."I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks! | |||
I'm thinking maybe we deserved the past 14 years. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!"Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself "Why? | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!" | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself "happy to talk about reality… All these freebies that have been declared by senior Labour politicians. Are the they ‘benefits in kind’ and therefore taxable?…. So many questions for Labour to answer, very few believable answers forthcoming. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?"Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt. "Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left. So not sure of your point? | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?"Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks? Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement. Which is utter bolllocks  | |||
"Has single person CT been taken away?" Not at the moment, but Labour will not say if they are considering it. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks "Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks | |||
 | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks "Weasely reply??? Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong. "Pot kettle | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong. "Or don’t comment if you don’t understand | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?"It's not like the millionaires are flooding to the UK under the Tories. Below a extract taken from a article on https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/britains-wealth-drain-continues-unabated Brexit pulled the plug on millionaires And accordingly Britain is slipping down Henley & Partner’s country wealth rankings. Over the past decade, the number of millionaires in the UK has dropped by 8% — while soaring elsewhere. In Germany, the high-net-worth-individual population has increased by 15% since 2013, in France it’s up 14%, while the number has risen by 35% in Australia, 29% in Canada, and an astonishing 62% in the USA. Over and above economics, this is to do with the USA’s continued appeal for high-net-worth migrants — the net millionaire inflow is projected to be 3,800 this year compared to 2,200 last year. While not at its pre-pandemic peak of 10,800, it’s moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has had the reverse Midas touch, struggling to retain its place at the top table for attracting global wealth. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
It's not like the millionaires are flooding to the UK under the Tories.
Below a extract taken from a article on
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/britains-wealth-drain-continues-unabated
Brexit pulled the plug on millionaires
And accordingly Britain is slipping down Henley & Partner’s country wealth rankings. Over the past decade, the number of millionaires in the UK has dropped by 8% — while soaring elsewhere. In Germany, the high-net-worth-individual population has increased by 15% since 2013, in France it’s up 14%, while the number has risen by 35% in Australia, 29% in Canada, and an astonishing 62% in the USA.
Over and above economics, this is to do with the USA’s continued appeal for high-net-worth migrants — the net millionaire inflow is projected to be 3,800 this year compared to 2,200 last year. While not at its pre-pandemic peak of 10,800, it’s moving in the right direction.
Unfortunately, since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has had the reverse Midas touch, struggling to retain its place at the top table for attracting global wealth."Shhhhhh! You can’t say the B word | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand "I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny' | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
It's not like the millionaires are flooding to the UK under the Tories.
Below a extract taken from a article on
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/britains-wealth-drain-continues-unabated
Brexit pulled the plug on millionaires
And accordingly Britain is slipping down Henley & Partner’s country wealth rankings. Over the past decade, the number of millionaires in the UK has dropped by 8% — while soaring elsewhere. In Germany, the high-net-worth-individual population has increased by 15% since 2013, in France it’s up 14%, while the number has risen by 35% in Australia, 29% in Canada, and an astonishing 62% in the USA.
Over and above economics, this is to do with the USA’s continued appeal for high-net-worth migrants — the net millionaire inflow is projected to be 3,800 this year compared to 2,200 last year. While not at its pre-pandemic peak of 10,800, it’s moving in the right direction.
Unfortunately, since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has had the reverse Midas touch, struggling to retain its place at the top table for attracting global wealth.
Shhhhhh! You can’t say the B word "Sorry it was the first article I found clearly disproving the bollocks written by the poster. It's best to argue with facts and sources rather than just spout opinion. Hint, hint, nod, nod.. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny' "Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise. I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks 
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea  | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
It's not like the millionaires are flooding to the UK under the Tories.
Below a extract taken from a article on
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/henley-private-wealth-migration-report-2024/britains-wealth-drain-continues-unabated
Brexit pulled the plug on millionaires
And accordingly Britain is slipping down Henley & Partner’s country wealth rankings. Over the past decade, the number of millionaires in the UK has dropped by 8% — while soaring elsewhere. In Germany, the high-net-worth-individual population has increased by 15% since 2013, in France it’s up 14%, while the number has risen by 35% in Australia, 29% in Canada, and an astonishing 62% in the USA.
Over and above economics, this is to do with the USA’s continued appeal for high-net-worth migrants — the net millionaire inflow is projected to be 3,800 this year compared to 2,200 last year. While not at its pre-pandemic peak of 10,800, it’s moving in the right direction.
Unfortunately, since the Brexit referendum in 2016, Britain has had the reverse Midas touch, struggling to retain its place at the top table for attracting global wealth.
Shhhhhh! You can’t say the B word
Sorry it was the first article I found clearly disproving the bollocks written by the poster. It's best to argue with facts and sources rather than just spout opinion. Hint, hint, nod, nod.. "I know I know but Brexit is like Fight Club, you don’t talk about it, it’s the very first, and second rule | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners we will know more after the budget at the end of October but it is not looking good. just saying its not austerity is not enough , " This exactly the last thing this country needs Is yet more austerity especially with the super rich companies walking away untouched by taxation the UK economy is also limping along when it needs true change | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea "You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done. Don't be so soft | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft "Yet he doesn't and he isn't a labour supporter. His retorts, in essence, pre GE is that Labour would be less self serving. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft
Yet he doesn't and he isn't a labour supporter. His retorts, in essence, pre GE is that Labour would be less self serving."That's proved to be the case
BTW, I'm entitled to 'think' as I wish | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft "So you think EVERYTHING Johnny say is bollocks 
So you don’t agree that people post complete rubbish on here? Such as all the rich people left last time Labour were in power? I mean, that sounds like bollocks to me and Johnny called out the posting of bollocks, but you don’t think that us bollocks because you think Johnny posts a load of bollocks, which in itself is a load of bollocks because there is no way everything Johnny posts is bollocks, so I reckon you’re talking bollocks | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft
So you think EVERYTHING Johnny say is bollocks
So you don’t agree that people post complete rubbish on here? Such as all the rich people left last time Labour were in power? I mean, that sounds like bollocks to me and Johnny called out the posting of bollocks, but you don’t think that us bollocks because you think Johnny posts a load of bollocks, which in itself is a load of bollocks because there is no way everything Johnny posts is bollocks, so I reckon you’re talking bollocks "Why are you so hurt dude? Relax a little. I said Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, not that everything he says is bollocks. When did I say people don't post complete rubbish on here? Sometimes I think you need to take a little step back and read words, or maybe fall off the horse, actually don't do that because the fall would be way too fucking high, don't want you to get hurt. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft
So you think EVERYTHING Johnny say is bollocks
So you don’t agree that people post complete rubbish on here? Such as all the rich people left last time Labour were in power? I mean, that sounds like bollocks to me and Johnny called out the posting of bollocks, but you don’t think that us bollocks because you think Johnny posts a load of bollocks, which in itself is a load of bollocks because there is no way everything Johnny posts is bollocks, so I reckon you’re talking bollocks
Why are you so hurt dude? Relax a little.
I said Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, not that everything he says is bollocks.
When did I say people don't post complete rubbish on here?
Sometimes I think you need to take a little step back and read words, or maybe fall off the horse, actually don't do that because the fall would be way too fucking high, don't want you to get hurt. "Maybe I need to put lots of
after a post like that so you know it us jokey? I thought saying bollocks multiple times was a big enough clue but looks like I need to spoon feed you
My horse is a giant Shire so will be a long way to fall. But I am good in the saddle so reckon I can stay on pretty comfortably and look down on the plebs (that means a joke 🥄)
It still doesn’t explain why you thought I could possibly be agreeing with everything in Johnny’s post when most of it was a joke (marmalade/kung fu 🥄) I reckon you are a bit embarrassed now and realise you look a bit silly  Don’t worry it happens to everyone well not everyone, I am always right 😉 | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft
So you think EVERYTHING Johnny say is bollocks
So you don’t agree that people post complete rubbish on here? Such as all the rich people left last time Labour were in power? I mean, that sounds like bollocks to me and Johnny called out the posting of bollocks, but you don’t think that us bollocks because you think Johnny posts a load of bollocks, which in itself is a load of bollocks because there is no way everything Johnny posts is bollocks, so I reckon you’re talking bollocks
Why are you so hurt dude? Relax a little.
I said Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, not that everything he says is bollocks.
When did I say people don't post complete rubbish on here?
Sometimes I think you need to take a little step back and read words, or maybe fall off the horse, actually don't do that because the fall would be way too fucking high, don't want you to get hurt.
Maybe I need to put lots of
after a post like that so you know it us jokey? I thought saying bollocks multiple times was a big enough clue but looks like I need to spoon feed you
My horse is a giant Shire so will be a long way to fall. But I am good in the saddle so reckon I can stay on pretty comfortably and look down on the plebs (that means a joke 🥄)
It still doesn’t explain why you thought I could possibly be agreeing with everything in Johnny’s post when most of it was a joke (marmalade/kung fu 🥄) I reckon you are a bit embarrassed now and realise you look a bit silly Don’t worry it happens to everyone well not everyone, I am always right 😉"I am definitely not embarrassed to say agreeing with what Johnny says whilst calling for reality is bollocks. No, nowhere near embarrassed. You're welcome to disagree with that, but it doesn't make you right. | |||
"The last time Labour were in power all the rich people left
Between 1997-2010 all the rich people left? Really?
Nothing matters anymore, just say any horseshit you want and pretend it's true.
We've already had people accusing Starmer of being a "nonce".
Last time Labour were in power, Portuguese marmalade was the only foodstuff imported from the EU.
Starmer is going to outlaw Kung Fu.
I am with you Johnny. I mean, I am no fan of Labour, or this current crop, but let’s at least talk about reality rather than utter bollocks!
Agreeing with that statement whilst asking for reality is utter bollocks itself
Why?
Because he was also chatting bollocks. Unless you actually believe what the statement said, which I doubt.
Well you marmalade and kung fu was an obvious joke. So I can only assume you mean either the nonce comment, which I too have seen made, or the nothing matters anymore, which is how it seems when people are spouting bollocks such as all the rich people left.
So not sure of your point?
Am I to meant know which parts you think are jokes and which parts are bollocks?
Your reply was 'I am with you Johnny', so unless you explain yourself, I'll assume you mean the whole statement.
Which is utter bolllocks
Weasely reply Feisty! The humour in Johnny’s post was obvious to anyone with eyes
The key point was early about people posting any old bollocks.
So did all the rich people leave last time Labour were in power? If not then saying that is bollocks
Weasely reply???
Maybe be clear in what you're actually agreeing with and we wouldn't have this fucking nonsense where you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Or don’t comment if you don’t understand
I perfectly understood the words 'I'm with you Johnny'
Hey just to say “weasely” was meant in a jokey way but as you didn’t take it that way am happy to apologise.
I am still a little bemused though. Did you HONESTLY think I agreed on the marmalade or kung fu? Did you honestly not think Johnny was joking? Did you honestly not think agreeing with Johnny was in relation to people spouting bollocks
Come on Feisty you’re a smart guy, maybe scrolling one handed isn’t a great idea
You'll know I think Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, if you wanna agree with him then I'll also say that's bollocks, which is what I done.
Don't be so soft
So you think EVERYTHING Johnny say is bollocks
So you don’t agree that people post complete rubbish on here? Such as all the rich people left last time Labour were in power? I mean, that sounds like bollocks to me and Johnny called out the posting of bollocks, but you don’t think that us bollocks because you think Johnny posts a load of bollocks, which in itself is a load of bollocks because there is no way everything Johnny posts is bollocks, so I reckon you’re talking bollocks
Why are you so hurt dude? Relax a little.
I said Johnny speaks a load of bollocks, not that everything he says is bollocks.
When did I say people don't post complete rubbish on here?
Sometimes I think you need to take a little step back and read words, or maybe fall off the horse, actually don't do that because the fall would be way too fucking high, don't want you to get hurt.
Maybe I need to put lots of
after a post like that so you know it us jokey? I thought saying bollocks multiple times was a big enough clue but looks like I need to spoon feed you
My horse is a giant Shire so will be a long way to fall. But I am good in the saddle so reckon I can stay on pretty comfortably and look down on the plebs (that means a joke 🥄)
It still doesn’t explain why you thought I could possibly be agreeing with everything in Johnny’s post when most of it was a joke (marmalade/kung fu 🥄) I reckon you are a bit embarrassed now and realise you look a bit silly Don’t worry it happens to everyone well not everyone, I am always right 😉
I am definitely not embarrassed to say agreeing with what Johnny says whilst calling for reality is bollocks.
No, nowhere near embarrassed.
You're welcome to disagree with that, but it doesn't make you right. "Am always right you know that!!!!! So EVERYTHING Johnny says is bollocks? Got it
I don’t agree | |||
| |||
"I love it when two people take over a thread with a petty argument" No you don't. | |||
"I love it when two people take over a thread with a petty argument No you don't." | |||
"I love it when two people take over a thread with a petty argument" I know! Who would do that? Some people | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power." How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. " Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) " Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. | |||
| |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! " Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist " Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" " As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. " As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened? | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) " support from the media isn’t everything ppl are moving away from mainstream bullshit look st social media YouTube podcasts there bigger by the day it’s where the future of debating is heading look at fab now way more ppl talking about politics than a few yrs back | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! " I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say." A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. " Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar? | |||
| |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too?" Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened?" Why hasn’t it happened? Where have you been? It just did! Reform barely existed 2 years ago. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say." Absolutely. The policy never stood up to basic scrutiny, but provided a good soundbite. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar?" Yes I would agree with that. Both groups unquestioningly lap up propaganda in an echo chamber. Feeding frenzy on flimsy data / facts, they believe anything that reinforces what they already believed … and then congratulate themselves for having “done their own research”. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock a few pieces over, shit everywhere, and then strut around as if then won. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. " Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar?" I do, but both the left and right are not one homogeneous group that thinks the same on everything, and that's a problem I have with conversations that say left thinks this and right thinks this. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues?" Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. | |||
"I will tell you what. Ed Milliband is not Tory Light. He is spanish inquisition Zealot left wing type and no one expected the spanish inquisition." It runs in the family. His Polish Marxist grandfather Sam fought for the Soviets against his own country in the Russo-Polish war. | |||
| |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened? Why hasn’t it happened? Where have you been? It just did! Reform barely existed 2 years ago. " What? We were talking about a new party that "better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people". | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar? I do, but both the left and right are not one homogeneous group that thinks the same on everything, and that's a problem I have with conversations that say left thinks this and right thinks this." I haven't seen a single left winger who saw the non-dom rule change for what it is. | |||
"Beware all you people calling for means tested benefits. I was wrong side of Gordon Browns "flagship benefit". That was means tested and the people running it didn't have a clue how to administer it and paid out money willy nilly, and then surprise surprise realised they'd paid out too much and too the wrong people. Luckily I was a bit smarter than them and kept all my paperwork and proved the advice I was given was wrong. They let me keep the money and gave me an enormously gushing apology but it took 2 years of grief and heartache to get there with threats of going to court and other things so beware of your means testing nirvana. It doesn't work and to give the tories credit they knew this and it's why everyone got £ 400 a couple of years ago. Can you imagine all those pensioners getting it wrong and falling into same trap. Labour doesn't have a clue in government and we all soon be paying an extremely high price for their incompetence." It'll make a change to have lefty incompetence as opposed to right incompetence | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar? I do, but both the left and right are not one homogeneous group that thinks the same on everything, and that's a problem I have with conversations that say left thinks this and right thinks this." Spot on | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues?" As far as I understand from the BBC, the Tories had already announced the phasing out of the non doms following the criticism of Sunak's wife. It doesn't mention any further things planned but dies sat the Tories built in some concessions to lesser the chance of those affected leaving the UK. I am not sure but don't recall the Tories saying it would raise money. Labour appear to want to scrap it fully and quickly including the concessions and seems it may not be the money saver they expected hence the possible rethink | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. " If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened? Why hasn’t it happened? Where have you been? It just did! Reform barely existed 2 years ago. What? We were talking about a new party that "better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people"." We were talking about barriers to entry, speed of being able to generate support, funding and seats. Stop trying to shift the goalposts. I was responding to comments saying it’s impossible to change the status quo | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. " Guess: they will raise taxes | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened? Why hasn’t it happened? Where have you been? It just did! Reform barely existed 2 years ago. What? We were talking about a new party that "better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people". We were talking about barriers to entry, speed of being able to generate support, funding and seats. Stop trying to shift the goalposts. " You're mistaken. We've been discussing your statement: "There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected." Are you unhappy with your original statement or "goalposts"? " I was responding to comments saying it’s impossible to change the status quo " It is. As per discussion. Your example of Reform isn't a good one. They don't have policies that are good for British people or the UK. They morphed from UKIP. They have support from large elements of the media. Have lots of funding. Run by millionaires. Etc. in fact Reform is an example that backs my argument. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! I have been saying this ever since the topic came up. They would earn fuck all by the rule change. The whole debate around this was left wing populism at its finest. You tell some left wingers "those evil rich people will pay", and they will blindly lap up whatever you say. A bit like if you tell all right wing populists. Stop the boats and deport all the immigrants and everything in their life will be all right and Britain will rule the waves again. Sure. Do you agree that both the groups of people are similar? I do, but both the left and right are not one homogeneous group that thinks the same on everything, and that's a problem I have with conversations that say left thinks this and right thinks this. I haven't seen a single left winger who saw the non-dom rule change for what it is." I don't know why you haven't, but it could be for a variety of reasons. You might not engage with enough left wing. Does your sample size qualify to be considered a legitimate survey. | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners They're just Tory-lite. The system won't allow any party offering any meaningful change to take power. How does “the system” achieve that? There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected. Oh boy! So in your example, if this new party had better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people. Where would the funding come from? What elements of the media would support them? There is more to being elected than policies people like. In those blind policy quizzes, the Green party win by far. But they don't represent the interests of billionaires, fossil fuels companies, big corporations etc, so have very little funding and very little media support. Just look how Corbyn was destroyed after his first surge in popularity for his first election. And he was only offering some relatively small changes. (If you want more info on how this was done, there's an in depth article on a site called Medialens) Corbyn was offering relatively small changes? Seriously? He had openly declared “revenge” / “moment of reckoning” on anyone who was well off. He was full-on communist Try reading the article, you'll see why you and others mistakenly say things like "he was a full on communist" As I say, there is nothing to stop someone running for parliament. If policies are coherent, build support and financial support. As I pointed out, this is not possible. Plus, if it was possible, why hasn't it happened? Why hasn’t it happened? Where have you been? It just did! Reform barely existed 2 years ago. What? We were talking about a new party that "better policies that would benefit the UK and ordinary British people". We were talking about barriers to entry, speed of being able to generate support, funding and seats. Stop trying to shift the goalposts. You're mistaken. We've been discussing your statement: "There are no barriers to anyone running for parliament. If a new party with a better set of policies generated enough support, they would be elected." Are you unhappy with your original statement or "goalposts"? I was responding to comments saying it’s impossible to change the status quo It is. As per discussion. Your example of Reform isn't a good one. They don't have policies that are good for British people or the UK. They morphed from UKIP. They have support from large elements of the media. Have lots of funding. Run by millionaires. Etc. in fact Reform is an example that backs my argument. " My comment about new policies, good for Britain, was clearly an example. The same is true for movements with bad policies. In both cases, tapping into undercurrents not being satisfied by other parties, the new party makes space for themselves. My point stands, it is not impossible to alter the status quo. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. Guess: they will raise taxes " True. Or not do the things they said they would do with the money. It's always a problem committing money that they think will be raised by a policy change and then when in government find the change is not actually going to raise money at all | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. Guess: they will raise taxes True. Or not do the things they said they would do with the money. It's always a problem committing money that they think will be raised by a policy change and then when in government find the change is not actually going to raise money at all" Do you think Labour did not know that the policy wouldn't raise any money? You vastly underestimate the deceptive nature of politicians. | |||
"They don't represent the working classes or the vulnerable and less well off. So - what are they? Besides taking bribes /gifts and bringing difficulty to pensioners" Clearly they are nothing to you as you have made your mind up and spout lies. | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. Guess: they will raise taxes True. Or not do the things they said they would do with the money. It's always a problem committing money that they think will be raised by a policy change and then when in government find the change is not actually going to raise money at all Do you think Labour did not know that the policy wouldn't raise any money? You vastly underestimate the deceptive nature of politicians." Perhaps or they believed some reports that it would raise money without investigating properly because it's suits the narrative of taxing the rich is always the answer. The vat on private schools could be another one but will likely take longer to play out plus they may only disclose the extra vat collected and not any extra burden on the state sector that may occur | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic." | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic. "Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two! | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!"What's inaccurate about that? | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that? "Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it! | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. " It wasn’t whataboutery it was just the same(ary). | |||
"And now the non-dom policy from the manifesto is unravelling, with the treasury saying it would raise no money at all. Another half-thought-out idea that sounded good in the echo chamber where their manifesto as formed. Next! Didn’t the Tories have a “crack down on non-doms” policy in their manifesto too? Why bring the tories into it? Labour are in power, and this policy is crumbling. Because it was a question? Did they? If so I wonder whether it would have encountered the same issues? Depends what they were actually trying to implement. But yes, probably wouldn’t have worked. But the point remains, one of labour’s manifesto promises is in tatters. No amount of whataboutery will change that. If it does not raise the money they originally expected, what happens to the things they had already earmarked the money for. It was supposed to fund extra hospital and dental appointments as well as breakfast clubs for schools. Guess: they will raise taxes True. Or not do the things they said they would do with the money. It's always a problem committing money that they think will be raised by a policy change and then when in government find the change is not actually going to raise money at all Do you think Labour did not know that the policy wouldn't raise any money? You vastly underestimate the deceptive nature of politicians. Perhaps or they believed some reports that it would raise money without investigating properly because it's suits the narrative of taxing the rich is always the answer. The vat on private schools could be another one but will likely take longer to play out plus they may only disclose the extra vat collected and not any extra burden on the state sector that may occur" Or offset the VAT these school businesses can now reclaim on purchases that they couldn’t before! | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that?
Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it!"Your comment answers nothing. How about you explain it to those of us you clearly deem of lesser intelligence | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that?
Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it!
Your comment answers nothing. How about you explain it to those of us you clearly deem of lesser intelligence "I haven't said anything, but if the cap fits... If you've saved for a holiday of a lifetime in two years but got very ill for a very long time, you'd have to use your saved money to get by. My point is you can prepare for things but circumstances alter those plans. That happens to the govt, so it's fair to say plans, policies of the shadow govt are also fucked. You cannot have 14 years of policies to put into place when you don't know the finances. All rather logical in my mind. Over 14 years they may have come up with astounding plans that, over the years they have had to amend time and time again, but it's about when they can put them into place. Again logical, common sense! | |||
| |||
"Precious labour government can't do no wrong. I'm better than you blah blah blah " Oh they can and they will. But let them do something horrific first . The small WFA now being means tested has grounds for back firing. There is nothing wrong in means testing but it might cost more in admin and in getting those pensioners who qualify for PC to receive it. In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing!
Mind you the whole of the DWP needs overhauling. Never experienced a more disgustingly organised department (and I work in the nhs  ) | |||
"Precious labour government can't do no wrong. I'm better than you blah blah blah " As for people being better than you, depends on the yardstick. Health? Behaviour? Attitude? Intelligence? All? | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that?
Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it!
Your comment answers nothing. How about you explain it to those of us you clearly deem of lesser intelligence
I haven't said anything, but if the cap fits...
If you've saved for a holiday of a lifetime in two years but got very ill for a very long time, you'd have to use your saved money to get by. My point is you can prepare for things but circumstances alter those plans.
That happens to the govt, so it's fair to say plans, policies of the shadow govt are also fucked. You cannot have 14 years of policies to put into place when you don't know the finances.
All rather logical in my mind.
Over 14 years they may have come up with astounding plans that, over the years they have had to amend time and time again, but it's about when they can put them into place.
Again logical, common sense!"There is an issue with what you say, the blackhole was known before the election, I knew it as the obr stated that f the government denied this they would be unhappy. And some posters including myself that they would say ho no look what the tories have done, we now have to make hard choices. So to me it is not common sense if I and others saw this coming. It is more of a con, more sleeze, more corruption no change more of the same, some people squeak they have been squeezed so much, and secrets and lies is the new one for today, with much more to come. No better than the tories and that comes from an ex-,labour supporter me. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! " Can you explain this please? | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that?
Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it!
Your comment answers nothing. How about you explain it to those of us you clearly deem of lesser intelligence
I haven't said anything, but if the cap fits...
If you've saved for a holiday of a lifetime in two years but got very ill for a very long time, you'd have to use your saved money to get by. My point is you can prepare for things but circumstances alter those plans.
That happens to the govt, so it's fair to say plans, policies of the shadow govt are also fucked. You cannot have 14 years of policies to put into place when you don't know the finances.
All rather logical in my mind.
Over 14 years they may have come up with astounding plans that, over the years they have had to amend time and time again, but it's about when they can put them into place.
Again logical, common sense!
There is an issue with what you say, the blackhole was known before the election, I knew it as the obr stated that f the government denied this they would be unhappy.
And some posters including myself that they would say ho no look what the tories have done, we now have to make hard choices.
So to me it is not common sense if I and others saw this coming.
It is more of a con, more sleeze, more corruption no change more of the same, some people squeak they have been squeezed so much, and secrets and lies is the new one for today, with much more to come.
No better than the tories and that comes from an ex-,labour supporter me."Keep it real yeah? You're stating Labour had 14 years to prepare, I'm stating You're wrong and the rationale why you're wrong. You're now jumping that ship and bringing up other shit that was not in the discussion | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please?" Tell me what you think it means. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means." I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. " More benefits for those in need | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need" Yes, but why is it a labour thing? Because Labour introduced it 20 years ago? Or because Labour are going to ensure everyone entitled receives it? | |||
"Labour are a left wing socialist mob who replaced a centre left Conservative mob! If the Conservative party had been truely Conservative Labour would not have been elected simple. " Labour, left wing socialists?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 | |||
"Labour haven’t been a party for the working class for decades. They only really care about the lefty champagne socialist types in North London. Sir two tier keir the sausage freer was just a Trojan horse to get them in Governement but he now looks like a village is missing its idiot… Only 20% voted for this rabble. They’ve had 14 years to prepare and it looks like it was done on the back of a fag packet….. absolutely pathetic.
Oh the ol 14 years bs... think for a moment or two!
What's inaccurate about that?
Economics, like many things, is not static. Really, think about it!
Your comment answers nothing. How about you explain it to those of us you clearly deem of lesser intelligence
I haven't said anything, but if the cap fits...
If you've saved for a holiday of a lifetime in two years but got very ill for a very long time, you'd have to use your saved money to get by. My point is you can prepare for things but circumstances alter those plans.
That happens to the govt, so it's fair to say plans, policies of the shadow govt are also fucked. You cannot have 14 years of policies to put into place when you don't know the finances.
All rather logical in my mind.
Over 14 years they may have come up with astounding plans that, over the years they have had to amend time and time again, but it's about when they can put them into place.
Again logical, common sense!
There is an issue with what you say, the blackhole was known before the election, I knew it as the obr stated that f the government denied this they would be unhappy.
And some posters including myself that they would say ho no look what the tories have done, we now have to make hard choices.
So to me it is not common sense if I and others saw this coming.
It is more of a con, more sleeze, more corruption no change more of the same, some people squeak they have been squeezed so much, and secrets and lies is the new one for today, with much more to come.
No better than the tories and that comes from an ex-,labour supporter me.
Keep it real yeah? You're stating Labour had 14 years to prepare, I'm stating You're wrong and the rationale why you're wrong. You're now jumping that ship and bringing up other shit that was not in the discussion "No I am not stating 14 years, I am stating that there is not a difference between these parties. As labour have done exactly as I expected lied to get into power. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need" Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA)" Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income."household income pmsl a couple with earnings of £1400 a month can’t get any help unless they rent | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income."There will be a number who will miss out, and the 40.000 predicted deaths. Sorry the 40.000 deaths will be offset by the triple lock rise next year so not to bad I say. Labour are being lambasted due to pledging to end the 2 child limit and have decided not to. Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.” I believe M.P's who rebelled lost the whip. | |||
"Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.”" I have an issue with this. If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have kids! The only way I see this as harsh is people previously getting it having it taken away when legislation changed. But it has been in place for a while so going forward everyone knows where they stand. You have more than two kids then that is your choice but you know that means no more child benefit above the first two | |||
"Labour are a left wing socialist mob who replaced a centre left Conservative mob! If the Conservative party had been truely Conservative Labour would not have been elected simple. Labour, left wing socialists?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂" There are Socialists, looney ones | |||
"Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.” I have an issue with this. If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have kids! The only way I see this as harsh is people previously getting it having it taken away when legislation changed. But it has been in place for a while so going forward everyone knows where they stand. You have more than two kids then that is your choice but you know that means no more child benefit above the first two "Child tax credit | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income.
There will be a number who will miss out, and the 40.000 predicted deaths. Sorry the 40.000 deaths will be offset by the triple lock rise next year so not to bad I say.
Labour are being lambasted due to pledging to end the 2 child limit and have decided not to.
Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.”
I believe M.P's who rebelled lost the whip."Was it pledged? I may be wrong but I don't think so. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income.household income pmsl a couple with earnings of £1400 a month can’t get any help unless they rent "Child benefit - when originally became means tested, it was a generous 50 grand (one) salary limit, it changed as it was unfair, as two parents could earn under 50 grand and still get it. | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income.
There will be a number who will miss out, and the 40.000 predicted deaths. Sorry the 40.000 deaths will be offset by the triple lock rise next year so not to bad I say.
Labour are being lambasted due to pledging to end the 2 child limit and have decided not to.
Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.”
I believe M.P's who rebelled lost the whip.
Was it pledged? I may be wrong but I don't think so. "Taken from The Financial Times, Starmer himself pledged in 2020 to scrap the limit, but has since abandoned that promise along with various other leftwing positions. | |||
"Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.” I have an issue with this. If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have kids! The only way I see this as harsh is people previously getting it having it taken away when legislation changed. But it has been in place for a while so going forward everyone knows where they stand. You have more than two kids then that is your choice but you know that means no more child benefit above the first two "But what about those couples with sooo much love to give, a potential child cannot be brought into the world due to costs. It not like buying the Mrs a new Vouge SE, it's a child a new life and it should be celebrated. Next you'll be telling me if you can't afford to send you kid to a private school then you shouldn't... shocking
Mrs x (sorry didn't know what emoji expressed taking the piss!!!) | |||
" In the long term those who don't get but do qualify will be much better off. A labour thing! Can you explain this please? Tell me what you think it means. I can't work it out, hence asking for an explanation. More benefits for those in need Those in need like children, (two child benefit cap, not abolished, but kept) OAP's (WFA) Pension credit so those in need can get WFA
As for the child tax credit cap, it's not being removed (yet), why are labour being lambasted for it when the tories instilled it? Child benefit is different and does not have a two child max. It's about household income.
There will be a number who will miss out, and the 40.000 predicted deaths. Sorry the 40.000 deaths will be offset by the triple lock rise next year so not to bad I say.
Labour are being lambasted due to pledging to end the 2 child limit and have decided not to.
Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.”
I believe M.P's who rebelled lost the whip.
Was it pledged? I may be wrong but I don't think so.
Taken from The Financial Times,
Starmer himself pledged in 2020 to scrap the limit, but has since abandoned that promise along with various other leftwing positions."I meant in the manifesto. Before that is irrelevant. | |||
| |||
"Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The two-child limit is an unspeakably cruel policy, inflicting destitution and misery on children and parents. It absolutely should be abolished.” I have an issue with this. If you can’t afford to have kids, don’t have kids! The only way I see this as harsh is people previously getting it having it taken away when legislation changed. But it has been in place for a while so going forward everyone knows where they stand. You have more than two kids then that is your choice but you know that means no more child benefit above the first two But what about those couples with sooo much love to give, a potential child cannot be brought into the world due to costs. It not like buying the Mrs a new Vouge SE, it's a child a new life and it should be celebrated.
Next you'll be telling me if you can't afford to send you kid to a private school then you shouldn't... shocking
Mrs x (sorry didn't know what emoji expressed taking the piss!!!)"I’d say that is false equivalence 😜 | |||
| |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are." Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year. | |||
"Labour are a left wing socialist mob who replaced a centre left Conservative mob! If the Conservative party had been truely Conservative Labour would not have been elected simple. Labour, left wing socialists?? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 There are Socialists, looney ones" If you think the last government was centre left Boris has a bridge to sell you. | |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are." "Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year." How many billions are you talking about? | |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are. Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year. How many billions are you talking about?" I'm not talking about any billions specifically. The estimates change all the time, I've never seen anything as low as 22 billion per year. Every year. Have you? | |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are." "Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year." "How many billions are you talking about?" "I'm not talking about any billions specifically. The estimates change all the time, I've never seen anything as low as 22 billion per year. Every year. Have you? " I just had a quick Google and the figures varied wildly, from £10bn to £140bn. Even with the largest number, £22bn works out to be 16% of a Brexit, which seems like rather a lot. Possibly not a bargain. | |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are. Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year. How many billions are you talking about? I'm not talking about any billions specifically. The estimates change all the time, I've never seen anything as low as 22 billion per year. Every year. Have you? I just had a quick Google and the figures varied wildly, from £10bn to £140bn. Even with the largest number, £22bn works out to be 16% of a Brexit, which seems like rather a lot. Possibly not a bargain." 15% of one year of Brexit. Which gives us exactly fuck all. Meanwhile making sure we don't continue to warm the planet, seems worthwhile. | |||
"Never mind, UK will lead the way in "carbon capture". 22 billion set to be spent on it I kid you not. What a strange bunch this lot are. Bargain compared to the billions we flush down the Brexit toilet every year. How many billions are you talking about? I'm not talking about any billions specifically. The estimates change all the time, I've never seen anything as low as 22 billion per year. Every year. Have you? I just had a quick Google and the figures varied wildly, from £10bn to £140bn. Even with the largest number, £22bn works out to be 16% of a Brexit, which seems like rather a lot. Possibly not a bargain. 15% of one year of Brexit. Which gives us exactly fuck all. Meanwhile making sure we don't continue to warm the planet, seems worthwhile. " *16% | |||
"Do you think they are going to hit PIP and other disability payments hard. Will they adopt the Tories plan for vouchers, catalogs and the like instead of cash payments? And if they do will that have a big effect on new motor sales through the loss of the motability scheme? Mrs x" By the time I get mine granted (it's been a year this month), I'll be owed thousands. Not sure I want thousands in vouchers . After the back pay pay is a different kettle of fish (unless they're amazon vouchers ) | |||
