Andrew Marr

Chippy_boy said:
The bung to the DUP was distasteful I agree, but entirely necessary to keep Jeremy Cretin out of No.10. An objective which justifies any and all actions, I might add. And in the scheme of things the amount was small. So far only a few hundred million has been paid.

Compare that to the £58 *billion* Labour is waving around to bribe the WASPI voters. Completely un-costed, thrown in on a whim.

Fucking cheek is a speciality of yours it seems.
Click to expand...


Just a quick reminder that surely the Tories (as the party of financial prudence) would have put the WASPI compensation to one side in case they lost the court case on the 06 October 2019
 
worsleyweb said:
So am i wrong - was it a labour policy that changed the release to automatic at half way as i stated. A yes or no will do.

Just a yes or no.
Click to expand...

Ah the old ‘yes’ or ‘no’ gambit. Popular amongst the under tens.

Labour policy was release after half the sentence. The Coalition Govt changed that to two-thirds meaning he would have been released in a further two years. The problem of terrorist related offenders, radicalisation and monitoring after release was highlighted but not, apparently, addressed and certainly not in this instance.

This is not a failure of policy. The Coalition Govt moved the goalposts but did not scrap the policy. It is a failure of the system in dealing with a particular category of prisoner and the challenge they present when the motive is political/religious and stems from radicalised belief. If others in this category have been released and do not reoffend then you could legitimately argue the system is working but it makes sense to review the system and see how much of that was down to better monitoring or the effects of a de radicalisation program or a mixture of both and see where it went wrong in this case.

In short a calm, rational analysis of the attack and the events leading up to it and identifying any failings in the system would serve us better than Johnson (or any politician) smearing their electioneering stink all over it.
 
BobKowalski said:
Ah the old ‘yes’ or ‘no’ gambit. Popular amongst the under tens.

Labour policy was release after half the sentence. The Coalition Govt changed that to two-thirds meaning he would have been released in a further two years. The problem of terrorist related offenders, radicalisation and monitoring after release was highlighted but not, apparently, addressed and certainly not in this instance.

This is not a failure of policy. The Coalition Govt moved the goalposts but did not scrap the policy. It is a failure of the system in dealing with a particular category of prisoner and the challenge they present when the motive is political/religious and stems from radicalised belief. If others in this category have been released and do not reoffend then you could legitimately argue the system is working but it makes sense to review the system and see how much of that was down to better monitoring or the effects of a de radicalisation program or a mixture of both and see where it went wrong in this case.

In short a calm, rational analysis of the attack and the events leading up to it and identifying any failings in the system would serve us better than Johnson (or any politician) smearing their electioneering stink all over it.
Click to expand...

So yes. Thanks.
 
Bigga said:
Laughable and the difference in our thinking is STARK!!
Click to expand...

It is, you are just completely wrong and I am right. I want sustainable improvement in public services enabled by a strong economy. You want unsustainable spending as a short term fix, resulting in economic ruin.

That's all there is to it.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Banging your head against a wall of ignorance mate.

The way I read your posts is:

1. The cuts have been necessary if undesirable. That the Tories were voted in on that platform shows that the wider - less myopic - members of the public shared that view

2. That - as tends to be always the case - the driver of the requirement for a sustained period of austerity has been the 'largesse' of the previous Labour regime that demonstrated in spades their incompetence in managing the economy.

3. That the worst thing thinkable for the health of the UK's economy and the well-being of future generations is that 'this' Labour leadership could come into power with the policies and ideologies that they have set out and those we can be confident that they will introduce. The damage that they would do this time would take generations to recover from.

4. That with austerity coming to an end there is a chance for significant spending but it has to be rational and controlled - this Labour Party cannot be trusted to find the right balance - just consider the latest ill-thought through bribes of today.

You are challenged by those locked into the myopia and ideologies and they seemingly care nothing for future generations - they are fundamentalists. They are not really assessing and replying to your posts otherwise they would accept the truth and not simply deflect - but they are only interested/capable of spouting their mantras.

And they are disingenuous shit that they are coming out with regarding this terrorist attack is shameless. If services are cut because of austerity and austerity was required due to Labour's time in power - it is obvious that Labour has a big share of responsibility.

Whilst I admire your attempts at explanation to and reasoning with them - I wonder as to why you bother - they are not interested in debate - just wish deride and shout down.

In summary - not worth bothering with
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
Chippy_boy said:
It is, you are just completely wrong and I am right. I want sustainable improvement in public services enabled by a strong economy. You want unsustainable spending as a short term fix, resulting in economic ruin.

That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

You want the devil you know, basically!

A fully costed manifesto that wants to improve our standard of living.

You want an extension of austerity.

Simple as that.
 
Bigga said:
You want the devil you know, basically!

A fully costed manifesto that wants to improve our standard of living.

You want an extension of austerity.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...
No, I want financial prudence with increased spending as the growing economy and reduced deficit allows. You want wreckless spending and financial irresponsibility.

Simple as that.
 
Chippy_boy said:
It is, you are just completely wrong and I am right. I want sustainable improvement in public services enabled by a strong economy. You want unsustainable spending as a short term fix, resulting in economic ruin.

That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...


We want to simply get back to where the public services and utilities were before thy were decimated by the Tories
 
worsleyweb said:
Well you are wrong - it is that simple. Labour introduced a policy that let dangerous criminals out automatically after serving half of their time. That is a fact. Spout all the shite you want it is really that simple. But for that Policy this horrendous event would not have happened.
Click to expand...

Why then if it was so disastrous didn't the Tories change the rules? It's like an ex wife of ten years giving you stick because you don't put her bins out. If they thought it was terrible they are even more culpable for doing fuck all about it. When a party has 10 years in power and harks back to previous mistakes without acti g to rectify it, they haven't a keg to stand on.

It's like the old joke, the band on before us were so bad, they were still booing when we were on. You can't have it both ways. If they just came in and didn't have the time to change it, your poi ts would be valid criticism, but, having ten years to fix it shows even greater misjudgement by doing nothing.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
We want to simply get back to where the public services and utilities were before thy were decimated by the Tories
Click to expand...
What about the idiotic nationalisations? You must mean back to the 1970's. BT was privatised in 1984. Water privatisation came in in 1989. Energy companies late 80's as well. Rail companies early 90's.

Your idiotic party wants to take the country back 40 years. These privatisation proceeds have been received - from taxpayers like you and me - and spent on public services already. Where do you propose to get the money from to buy them back again? More debt, which has to be paid for by who? Our children. THIS is official Labour policy: Borrow a shed load more money, fuck the consequences and "other people" - our children in fact - can pay for it.

Please try and engage your brain, it's so much better when people do that.
 
Magicpole said:
Why then if it was so disastrous didn't the Tories change the rules? It's like an ex wife of ten years giving you stick because you don't put her bins out. If they thought it was terrible they are even more culpable for doing fuck all about it. When a party has 10 years in power and harks back to previous mistakes without acti g to rectify it, they haven't a keg to stand on.

It's like the old joke, the band on before us were so bad, they were still booing when we were on. You can't have it both ways. If they just came in and didn't have the time to change it, your poi ts would be valid criticism, but, having ten years to fix it shows even greater misjudgement by doing nothing.
Click to expand...

They did change the rules but could not change sentences already issued pre 2012. This guy was arrested before then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top