The Labour Government

Care to substantiate that claim? On face value it would seem like another Bob-ism: steaming load of bollocks wrapped in some fluffy sentences.

What the EU lost from Brexit

  • A major economy: The UK was the second-largest economy in the EU.
  • Military power: The UK was the leading military power in Europe and one of the few nuclear states.
  • Financial hub: London was (and remains) Europe's dominant financial centre.
  • Budget contributions: The UK was a net contributor, so the EU had to fill a funding gap.
  • Political balance: The UK was a liberal, free-market counterweight to more statist members like France — its absence shifted the balance.
But I shall try to have an open mind!

You could have at least managed to mention the actual Brexit trade deal in your talking points. That would be the deal we are renegotiating to slash red tape, open access to EU markets and, you know, try and get back to what we had and since lost.

Surprised you didn’t go for the obvious one. The ability to do a quick and dirty deal with the US and dodge the lunatic’s self imposed consumer tax nonsense and leaving the EU and US to slug it out.

Military power is interesting. EU was a trade bloc, not a military bloc when we left. However, the world now is a lot different to 2016 with the Ukraine invasion and the increased unreliability of the US. We are now seeking stronger security and defence ties with Europe which is in everyone’s interests. France, though, is blocking UK firms from benefitting from EU defence funds given it is a non-EU country. EU defence benefits for EU countries only. It’s about control and France making sure that juicy pie isn’t divided up too thinly. C’est la change and all that.
 
Aren’t you doing exactly what you say people shouldn’t do in your first sentence there though?

I meant more what specific decisions people think are examples of it needing to be depoliticised, as most examples I see when people say that are because a court has stopped a government action that to me was clearly political in itself (Rwanda was the example I was thinking about when I said the previous government.
I happen to believe that the sentencing handed out after the Southport incidents was, on advice by the Government, harsher than some of the previous incidents. BLM disturbances for example. I call that politicising the judiciary. It should not happen in a parliamentary democracy.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But your question in itself I find frustrating. I'm not moaning about things for myself.

I'm sure you don't think this, but people seem to conclude that because I am oppposed to raising the top rate of tax, that would impact me: It wouldn't. Ditto a wealth tax, ditto treatment of non-doms etc. As I've said, it's 99% white British around where I live.

I mention this not at all to mean "I'm alright Jack". Far from it. I mention it so that when people see me criticizing our levels of immigration and IMO daft tax proposals etc, it's not about ME. It's about me thinking what's the best thing for our country that I love.

I want EVERYONE in the UK to be as well off as possible, to have the best public services in the world. I just passionately believe that the way to get that is to get the state off peoples' backs, not tax the better off until the pips squeak and bung the money at public services and the needy. I don't think it works.
My point is that we're all on here, a pretty average bunch, worked hard (most of us), probably from fairly working class backgrounds. But for all of the moaning about how Labour are doing this and that and apparently making it worse for the population, apart from the WFA(the pension has been uplifted by more now anyway), I have yet to read of someone actually being worse off as a result of government policy (apart from Big Joe who thinks government set his car insurance prices).

I too want better services, better pension, better welfare, better armed forces. But it all has to be paid for somehow and the taxation system as it stands is clearly not providing enough. As I've said before 2% on VAT on everything over say £200 would help. Also a £1000 fine for every illegal number plate on cars should raise a couple of £bn :-)
 
Last edited:
Watched it for 14 years, and another 14 with thatcher.
.... and this bunch of clowns have hardly started yet.... hold on tight and enjoy the ride.

Starmer "There is lots of housing available in LA's in which to put immigrants".... really? Does he really believe that?



Darren Jones Treasury minister "the majority of people on these boats are women and children" Really? 23 secs.


and these guys are running the country? Could they be more out of touch if they tried? Boris was bad but....
 
.... and this bunch of clowns have hardly started yet.... hold on tight and enjoy the ride.

Starmer "There is lots of housing available in LA's in which to put immigrants".... really? Does he really believe that?



Darren Jones Treasury minister "the majority of people on these boats are women and children" Really? 23 secs.


and these guys are running the country? Could they be more out of touch if they tried? Boris was bad but....

And your saviour is??????? Farage.
 
Starmer "There is lots of housing available in LA's in which to put immigrants".... really? Does he really believe that?
Why shouldn’t he believe it? There are around a million empty properties of which 250,000 are long term unoccupied. A lot of these are owned by rich foreigners who own them as investments and have no intention of using them or renting them out. Some legislation to encourage them to be made available would certainly help.

It only takes a minute to find out these things on the web.
 
Why shouldn’t he believe it? There are around a million empty properties of which 250,000 are long term unoccupied. A lot of these are owned by rich foreigners who own them as investments and have no intention of using them or renting them out. Some legislation to encourage them to be made available would certainly help.

It only takes a minute to find out these things on the web.
... so why is pledging to spend copious amounts of money (that Rachel tells us we don't have) building another 1.5 m houses... if we already have surplus stock?
 
2015 is when it really went off the rails. The biggest mistake at that point was turning austerity into a political mission rather than an economic one. They did the same with privatisation years before.

Since 2015 we have had six Prime Ministers in ten years. Prior to 2015 we had six Prime Minsters in forty years. This political instability reflected the instability in the country as a whole where we junked a broad political consensus on our industrial and foreign policy and lurched from a rebranded 1970’s Labour lite protectionist industrial policy - a ‘high wage economy’ as Johnson called it, to a far right low tax, minimal state and threadbare safety net for everyone. Basically, an ‘I’m all right Jack and fuck anyone who isn’t’ society. It lasted 45 days.

At this point the Tories were politically and intellectually dead. They were neither the party of business nor the party of the people. There was no intellectual coherence or even any idea of what the stood for. Sunak was left to tend the shop, made little attempt to govern and any hard decisions like overcrowding in our prisons and potential collapse of the justice system were booted into the next Parliament for a new Government to deal with. All they had was unworkable gimmicks and rhetoric. They even allowed our Union to be divided into separate economic jurisdictions - something May said was unthinkable for a Tory Government. Until Johnson threw our Union under the bus and held a funeral for the ‘Conservative and Unionist Party’.

What is their future? A change in leadership most certainly, but they also need a new identity. The far right is occupied by Reform whose obsession is immigration, but would also like to gut the State, health care and safety nets and make the rich even richer as the the GOP/Trump are doing now. For that they need marks and you are the mark. You have to con the people first before you can rob them. The beauty of marks is they can’t imagine they are marks until reality bites as it is currently doing especially in rural Republican communities in the US.

Starmer/Labour are pitching tent in the centre with a side helping of social conservatism (which has always been a feature of Labour and for which I have a strong distaste). This will push younger voters especially women towards more left leaning parties. Everyone talks about men drifting right, but the drift of women leftwards is just as pronounced if not more so.

So wither the Tories? Their right side is occupied, Labour are making a play for the centre, and they torched their reputation for competence. They need an identity, otherwise what is the point of them?
I've just read a book called Collapse of the Conservatives by Steve Rayson.
Certainly an interesting read.
He cites many of the things that you do, and looks at many focus group findings.
The main take I got from it was that Partygate was the absolute final straw for most people. Then the Truss debacle. Sunak needed to have been a magician after that shitshow. And that the public most definitely detests being lied to, whether it be regarding Partygate, the state of the economy or whatever.
They want a clear plan, truth, integrity, and competence.
It also brought it home how completely different those 5 PMs were....none of them seemed to share the same message or vision. Circumstances may have dictated that, but I just think they lost identity completely after Brexit.
 
I happen to believe that the sentencing handed out after the Southport incidents was, on advice by the Government, harsher than some of the previous incidents. BLM disturbances for example. I call that politicising the judiciary. It should not happen in a parliamentary democracy.

I’m not sure that’s a good example as there was precedence, similar if not more strict sentencing was handed out back in 2011 -


I’d agree if you said you think the sentencing guidelines aren’t correct in certain areas but they were pre-existing, there wasn’t any political influence to change them either way.
 
I've just read a book called Collapse of the Conservatives by Steve Rayson.
Certainly an interesting read.
He cites many of the things that you do, and looks at many focus group findings.
The main take I got from it was that Partygate was the absolute final straw for most people. Then the Truss debacle. Sunak needed to have been a magician after that shitshow. And that the public most definitely detests being lied to, whether it be regarding Partygate, the state of the economy or whatever.
They want a clear plan, truth, integrity, and competence.
It also brought it home how completely different those 5 PMs were....none of them seemed to share the same message or vision. Circumstances may have dictated that, but I just think they lost identity completely after Brexit.

I’ll look out for that book. I find the current state of the Conservative Party fascinating, given so much of what ails them was self-inflicted.
 
Y
I’m not sure that’s a good example as there was precedence, similar if not more strict sentencing was handed out back in 2011 -


I’d agree if you said you think the sentencing guidelines aren’t correct in certain areas but they were pre-existing, there wasn’t any political influence to change them either way.
There seems to be political interference in the speed of court appearances and severity of sentences in cases of public unrest and its has gone on for years. It’s to keep down public unrest. I can’t prove it, I suspect it. I am not easy with what’s going on. I don’t trust Starmer. IMO.
 
I’ll look out for that book. I find the current state of the Conservative Party fascinating, given so much of what ails them was self-inflicted.
It's available on Amazon Kindle unlimited if you have it.
And yes, I find it fascinating too. Just when you thought they couldn't get any worse they invariably did!!
Brought it home to me how badly let down we all were.
 
... so why is pledging to spend copious amounts of money (that Rachel tells us we don't have) building another 1.5 m houses... if we already have surplus stock?
No idea. Maybe the empty housing stock is largely unaffordable or in the wrong place, but it’s there.

Also I don’t think the plan is to spend copious amounts on housing. It’s more about streamlining the planning process to enable house builders to build affordable properties more quickly with less cost and fewer constraints.
 
Y

There seems to be political interference in the speed of court appearances and severity of sentences in cases of public unrest and its has gone on for years. It’s to keep down public unrest. I can’t prove it, I suspect it. I am not easy with what’s going on. I don’t trust Starmer. IMO.
I think you’ve answered your own point. It makes perfect sense to deal with public disorder promptly and harshly to discourage it from continuing. It worked.
 
Y

There seems to be political interference in the speed of court appearances and severity of sentences in cases of public unrest and its has gone on for years. It’s to keep down public unrest. I can’t prove it, I suspect it. I am not easy with what’s going on. I don’t trust Starmer. IMO.
So.... do you agree that Starmers sentence about there being "lots of housing" was at best ill advised and at worst plain stupid?

... and as for Jones, come on, "the majority of people on those boats are women and children" that is so incomprehensible it's untrue... where the fuck do they get their bullshit from?

At least you never tried to deflect the issue by saying something stupid like... "Nigel". I take it from that, that whilst we do and probably will forever, disagree you unserstand the political wilderness I find myself in, and again whilst you totally disagree with my tactics and option you can see that I do not support any party.
 
Y

There seems to be political interference in the speed of court appearances and severity of sentences in cases of public unrest and its has gone on for years. It’s to keep down public unrest. I can’t prove it, I suspect it. I am not easy with what’s going on. I don’t trust Starmer. IMO.

There always has been that regardless of political interference for obvious reasons, the severity of sentences being greater during times of unrest is written into the guidelines. That long predates Starmer or any recent government, so you can prove that.

That you don’t think you can and only suspect and also say you don’t trust Starmer, I take it you get why some might think you’re actually politicising it yourself?
 
Y

There seems to be political interference in the speed of court appearances and severity of sentences in cases of public unrest and its has gone on for years. It’s to keep down public unrest. I can’t prove it, I suspect it. I am not easy with what’s going on. I don’t trust Starmer. IMO.

I said this at the time, but threats to the State, and in this case, a newly elected Government are invariably dealt with swiftly and harshly. It was an attempt to change Govt policy through violence and intimidation against persons and property which is the definition of terrorism under UK law.

It upsets you because you are on the side of the terrorists this time around. If violence breaks out again this summer, then it will be met with the similar force by the State.

Keep your protests peaceful and you will not have a problem. On the bright side, at least you can carry signs without being arrested.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top