Andrew Marr

[Chippy_boy]

Just checking that you agree with it and would welcome it (the screwing of public services) as you seem content with the screwing of public services so far.

No, I meant I agreed with Ifwasonly...

I thought that was obvious. And your phrasing that I am "content" with the screwing of public services, is not at all accurate. I'd like better public services - who the fuck wouldn't. It would be idiotic to like worse services. No-one goes into a restaurant and says can you bring me my food after an hour or so, oh, and can you get the order wrong please, and make sure one the the dishes is cold.

However, I *understand* that there was a need for spending restraint, and I *understand* that we don't have a bottomless pit of money to throw at things. An understanding that seems entirely lacking on your side of the fence.

 

[Bigga]

No, I meant I agreed with Ifwasonly...

I thought that was obvious. And your phrasing that I am "content" with the screwing of public services, is not at all accurate. I'd like better public services - who the fuck wouldn't. It would be idiotic to like worse services. No-one goes into a restaurant and says can you bring me my food after an hour or so, oh, and can you get the order wrong please, and make sure one the the dishes is cold.

However, I *understand* that there was a need for spending restraint, and I *understand* that we don't have a bottomless pit of money to throw at things. An understanding that seems entirely lacking on your side of the fence.

Then you *understand* the need to cut vital services like nurses, doctors, police, mental health, social services, care of the elderly, less fire stations...

 

[r.soleofsalford]

No, I meant I agreed with Ifwasonly...

I thought that was obvious. And your phrasing that I am "content" with the screwing of public services, is not at all accurate. I'd like better public services - who the fuck wouldn't. It would be idiotic to like worse services. No-one goes into a restaurant and says can you bring me my food after an hour or so, oh, and can you get the order wrong please, and make sure one the the dishes is cold.

However, I *understand* that there was a need for spending restraint, and I *understand* that we don't have a bottomless pit of money to throw at things. An understanding that seems entirely lacking on your side of the fence.

We found a bottomless pit of money to dig the big Banks out.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Then you *understand* the need to cut vital services like nurses, doctors, police, mental health, social services, care of the elderly, less fire stations...

No, we should give them wine gums instead of money and hope they will work for free. Sorry to be rude, but what a daft question.

I really do not get you lot at times, I really don't. You seem to be in this cloud cuckoo land where we can have whatever public services spending we like, irrespective of our ability to afford it.

Maybe it's because you don't remember the shit we were in last time Labour was allowed to borrow and splurge on the levels that dickhead of an opposition leader is proposing? Or maybe it's just because you simply haven't thought it through? Although how on earth that could be the case after all this time, god only knows.

Labour are promising an extra £82.9bn of day-to-day public spending. (Not investment, just spending). There is no way on planet earth that can be paid for with their proposed tax changes. Take a look at page 4 of their "Funding Real Change" document. It's absolute poppycock. Had they been honest and said the whole of our society needs to pay more tax - say raising the basic rate to 25p for everyone - then it might have been more believable, but as it stands it's absolute electioneering fantasy. And of course, millions more of the "I want free stuff" Labour voters would run a mile.

 

[Bigga]

No, we should give them wine gums instead of of money and hope they will work for free. Sorry to be rude, but what a daft question.

I really do not get you lot at times, I really don't. You seem to be in this cloud cuckoo land where we can have whatever public services spending we like, irrespective of our ability to afford it.

Maybe it's because you don't remember the shit we were in last time Labour was allowed to borrow and splurge on the levels that dickhead of an opposition leader is proposing? Or maybe it's just because you simply haven't thought it through? Although how on earth that could be the case after all this time, god only knows.

So, you agree on austerity cuts to the security of the nation that result in the tragedies involving admitted terrorists that should have been monitored better?

At least we know now...

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not really watched his show before. He’s not very good is he?

He’s wank. The Geoffrey Howe of political interviewers.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So, you agree on austerity cuts to the security of the nation that result in the tragedies involving admitted terrorists that should have been monitored better?

At least we know now...

At least you don't.

You're putting words into my mouth. I said I understand why cuts - undesirable though they are - are sometimes unfortunately necessary. In an ideal world, we'd all have marvellous public services and we wouldn't be having this discussion. We don't live in such a world, although you seem to think we do.

And I reject your attempt subliminally to blame the events of Friday on the Tories. We've not finished the debate about why he was eligible for parole in the first place, have we.

 

[Bigga]

At least you don't.

You're putting words into my mouth. I said I understand why cuts - undesirable though they are - are sometimes unfortunately necessary. In an ideal world, we'd all have marvellous public services and we wouldn't be having this discussion. We don't live in such a world, although you seem to think we do.

And I reject your attempt subliminally to blame the events of Friday on the Tories. We've not finished the debate about why he was eligible for parole in the first place, have we.

Reject away.

The truth is very much out there and stated by MANY professionals that acknowledge cuts being a direct factor in the state of security in this country. Cuts which, you have openly said you "understand".

You can't have it both ways, muchacho.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Reject away.

The truth is very much out there and stated by MANY professionals that acknowledge cuts being a direct factor in the state of security in this country. Cuts which, you have openly said you "understand".

You can't have it both ways, muchacho.

I'm not having anything both ways. I understand the need for cuts. End of.

When you also understand the need for financial prudence, you might have a chance of getting a majority in a general election. Let that sink in for 2 minutes.

 

[Bigga]

I'm not having anything both ways. I understand the need for cuts. End of.

When you also understand the need for financial prudence, you might have a chance of getting a majority in a general election. Let that sink in for 2 minutes.

Deflect all you like.

If a government wants to 'cut' there's a profound need to not cut certain parts of a budget, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ON TERRORISM, in order to keep your country safe! So, instead of thinking 'yeah, that's fucked up!' you choose to focus on the economy or 'getting Brexit done'!

This, quite honestly, shows the difference in a party fighting to readdress the failings of vital services needed to another slow in seeing the issues of what it's done.

You want Brexit activated in Jan and it could take in the region of SEVEN YEARS to agree any trade deals for this country, so by default we're on an austerity pinch again.

It really IS disgusting thinking from anyone sympathetic to being anti-Labour for any supposed reason.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

We found a bottomless pit of money to dig the big Banks out.

A good and often forgotten point. I'm sure many of us have also promptly made mortgage repayments to these same banks every moth for the last 10 years, while the repayment schedule from them to the public purse remains unclear.

 

[worsleyweb]

So, you agree on austerity cuts to the security of the nation that result in the tragedies involving admitted terrorists that should have been monitored better?

At least we know now...

Labour introduced the policy that dangerous criminal should be automatically released after serving half of their sentence? That is why this man was out.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

A good and often forgotten point. I'm sure many of us have also promptly made mortgage repayments to these same banks every moth for the last 10 years, while the repayment schedule from them to the public purse remains unclear.

Was anyone at the top of banking sector ever imprisoned for watch they did.

 

[Bigga]

Labour introduced the policy that dangerous criminal should be automatically released after serving half of their sentence? That is why this man was out.

Sutcliffe is still in and he's just ONE example!

Is Labour responsible for the other 74 released too?

Are Labour responsible for 10 years of Tory government where they had the ability to review that rule?

Are Labour responsible for Khan not getting a parole board review as that was an option not taken?!

Are Labour responsible implementing 3 out of 69 recommendations for Isis fighters convicted of terrorism?

Are Labour responsible for the cuts you favoured in order to save money, but not lives?

Keep passing the buck.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Deflect all you like.

If a government wants to 'cut' there's a profound need to not cut certain parts of a budget, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR ON TERRORISM, in order to keep your country safe! So, instead of thinking 'yeah, that's fucked up!' you choose to focus on the economy or 'getting Brexit done'!

This, quite honestly, shows the difference in a party fighting to readdress the failings of vital services needed to another slow in seeing the issues of what it's done.

You want Brexit activated in Jan and it could take in the region of SEVEN YEARS to agree any trade deals for this country, so by default we're on an austerity pinch again.

It really IS disgusting thinking from anyone sympathetic to being anti-Labour for any supposed reason.

Well first of all, I am not taking lectures on a "war on terrorism" from someone who supports a Labour leader who wants to scrap Nato and cut our armed forces, and his sidekick - John McDonnell - who has called for the total scrapping of Mi5 and the disarming of our police. Corbyn has voted against pretty much every piece of anti-terror legislation ever put before parliament. And you lecture ME on the Tories approach? Talk about fucking cheek!

Furthermore, yet again, you demonstrate a complete lack of acceptance of real world challenges. In this little exchange you're arguing that the services relevant to a "war on terrorism" should not have been cut.

But we know the game here. Next week it will be some similar proclamation about how we should have increased NHS spending even more. The week after it will be same old, same old, but with a different department.

It's a cracked record of SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and yet nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is any acknowledgement from you that a country only has limited funds and that money does not grow on trees.

Why don't you try to gain a bit of credibility and say "I fully accept that money does not grow on trees and that unfortunately cuts are sometimes unavoidable? I'm not holding my breath

 

[Bigga]

Well first of all, I am not taking lectures on a "war on terrorism" from someone who supports a Labour leader who wants to scrap Nato and cut our armed forces, and his sidekick - John McDonnell - who has called for the total scrapping of Mi5 and the disarming of our police. Corbyn has voted against pretty much every piece of anti-terror legislation ever put before parliament. And you lecture ME on the Tories approach? Talk about fucking cheek!

Furthermore, yet again, you demonstrate a complete lack of acceptance of real world challenges. In this little exchange you're arguing that the services relevant to a "war on terrorism" should not have been cut.

But we know the game here. Next week it will be some similar proclamation about how we should have increased NHS spending even more. The week after it will be same old, same old, but with a different department.

It's a cracked record of SPEND, SPEND, SPEND and yet nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is any acknowledgement from you that a country only has limited funds and that money does not grow on trees.

Why don't you try to gain a bit of credibility and say "I fully accept that money does not grow on trees and that unfortunately cuts are sometimes unavoidable? I'm not holding my breath

I dunno, ask the DUP how they managed to receive a billion leafs from a money tree...

 

[Chippy_boy]

I dunno, ask the DUP how they managed to receive a billion leafs from a money tree...

Please do not accuse anyone of "deflection" EVER AGAIN.

 

[domalino]

Labour introduced the policy that dangerous criminal should be automatically released after serving half of their sentence? That is why this man was out.

After 10 years in power it's very difficult to play the old "The opposition did it" defence.

If you've got a problem with Labour laws on releasing prisoners, then one of the 7 Ministers of Justice (Ken Clarke, Grayling, Liz Truss, Gove, David Livington, David Gauke, Robert Buckland) should have seen to it since the conservatives took power.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We found a bottomless pit of money to dig the big Banks out.

a) It was the right thing to do, or tens of millions of people would have lost their life's savings and their pensions.

b) Doing it was hardly without consequences, was it. It plunged us into enormous debt and fucked the country up for the next 10 years. You may have noticed?

And your side's suggestion is that we fuck up the country for the next 10 years by doing exactly the same thing, only more so? Genius, absolute genius.

 

[BobKowalski]

Sutcliffe is still in and he's just ONE example!

Is Labour responsible for the other 74 released too?

Are Labour responsible for 10 years of Tory government where they had the ability to review that rule?

Are Labour responsible for Khan not getting a parole board review as that was an option not taken?!

Are Labour responsible implementing 3 out of 69 recommendations for Isis fighters convicted of terrorism?

Are Labour responsible for the cuts you favoured in order to save money, but not lives?

Keep passing the buck.

I’m going with no as the answer to the above.

There was no reference to reviewing sentencing guidelines or implementing better monitoring measures etc in the recent Queen’s Speech that Johnson deemed so necessary either. Can’t imagine why he was suddenly all over the attack. Maybe there is an election on.