The Labour Government

philfodenswristsock said:
The "adults in the room" are nailing it. Fair play to them. It takes a special kind of political mastery to alienate 80% of the base!

They've successfully Re-launched the mortal enemy, ex leader Corbyn as the honest, believable alternative, (a man they spent time, money and political good will destroying)

They've moved The Labour Party into the territory of the Thatcherite Right, in an attempt to "eat the lunch" of Reform PLC, not realising people don't tend to buy the releases of cover bands.

They've proudly set us on an inevitable path to war with the victor's of WW2 while forgetting nobody will be heading off to fight for Kier Starmer

They've insured the vulnerable in society and anyone with a drop of compassion toward them will NEVER vote Labour again

They've been steadfast in their support of mass murder

They've instigated some highly authoritarian laws that even people of the muddle brained right will live to regret further down the line

They've set the economy on a dreadful downward spiral

And they've opened the publics eyes to who politicians ACTUALLY represent... THAT was supposed to be a secret!

Absolute geniuses. Adults in the room. Cool, no frills, no dramas politics managed by professionals.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Taylor Swift tickets and free clothes.
 
Chippy_boy said:
How do you suggest she did that? Interesting fantasy you have.
Click to expand...
Privatisation by any chance ? There's a reason why our energy production is owned by German, French and Spanish national operators. Likewise with water, railways etc. The wealth of a nation is the sum of its parts and a key part is its infrastructure as its inextricably linked to its means of production

All the privatisation did was allow institutions to sweat the assets for profit, so we end up where we are now with energy distribution equipment 60 years old and starting to fail as its not been replaced or maintained. Pumping and transit systems for clean and foul water leaking. OFGEM, OFWAT and the like as regulators have been completely ineffective at stopping this.
 
Kompany Car said:
Not directly, but its addition revenue for UK Plc to do something with which may start to solve the problem assuming its directed towards solving an issue that affects everyone rather than targeting money to specific groups.

When you have no money and you tell yourself you dont want to borrow any more, you need to monetise what you have remaining. Thatcher sold the family silver and instead of using the money to grow the UK, she handed it to banks and international investors who continue to milk the profits. What im suggesting is that the money gained from opening up oil and gas drilling should be put into energy security and only energy security which will eventually result in only nuclear and renewables with energy storage with a sizeable majority of those assets held and controlled by the UK government.
Click to expand...
Understood, fair comment.
 
philfodenswristsock said:
Well. Two things with that I guess.

1. Exactly HOW BAD are the "Professional, Adults in the room" at communicating their 'succsesses'? This slick operation appears to be somewhat..well... amateur!

2. The mandate they were elected on was of huge, consequential change. I think the impression people got, as (hint hint) it wasn't specifically tied down... was of deep structural change. If they didn't actually know what that was, then the public at large could've helped them. Personally, i wanted a close look at our financial system the role of the BOE, the debt money system and the setting of interest rates by unelected commitee, but obviously other people might have had other ideas... I dont know... uurrrmmm... eradicating poverty, sorting out council housing, homlessness and reversing the failed privatisaion experiments etc.... Instead what we got was a ropey budget based around childish notions of 'black holes' which set the scene for Mr Charismatic to basically tell us austerity was coming back, everything was going to be shit (more great, slick communicatins) there's no money for our vulnerable who drain our society and the much needed infrastructure is a pipe dream... (but a shit load for war mongering it goes without saying)

They just aren't very good are they!
Click to expand...
That really didn't answer the question. I know you are not in favour of labour.

Yes, they have made some bad mistakes (as all Governments do), but they have also achieved some good things along the way.

Again, are you not willing to recognise and agree to that
 
Kompany Car said:
Privatisation by any chance ? There's a reason why our energy production is owned by German, French and Spanish national operators. Likewise with water, railways etc. The wealth of a nation is the sum of its parts and a key part is its infrastructure as its inextricably linked to its means of production

All the privatisation did was allow institutions to sweat the assets for profit, so we end up where we are now with energy distribution equipment 60 years old and starting to fail as its not been replaced or maintained. Pumping and transit systems for clean and foul water leaking. OFGEM, OFWAT and the like as regulators have been completely ineffective at stopping this.
Click to expand...

Ok I see. I edited my post to be less confrontational before you quoted it btw.

But you will clearly understand that in return for the privatisations, we RECEIVED a lot of money from investors, not gave it to them, which is why I was puzzled by your initial post. And I still don't get how you figure Thatcher has given money to the banks, btw.

But I agree with you about the piss poor performance of our regulators in general. Ideally you have healthy competition which regulates itself by it's very nature. We don't need to regulate how Tesco competes with Sainsbury's do we. But in the absence of that you need a regulator to hold companies to account, and FAR too often, they have failed to do so. Hence the situations you describe. Private businesses will always prioritise profits. If they need to offer great customer service to do that, they will (Marks & Spencer, for example). If they can get away with shite service, they will do that too. Monopolies or businesses with no competition can do that, and need to be prevented from doing so by a regulator. It's not the companies' "fault", any more than it's the tiger's fault for eating the zoo keeper. It's what companies do, and what the regulators have failed to prevent.

EDIT: Did you know that the rail regulator doesn't bother to regulate 1st class fares at all? Mind boggles. So they give out like 10 year rail franchises, offering customers no choice and let the train companies charge what they like. So now a 1st class return from Bristol to London - a 1 hour journey - is now £393 in the morning. Utter madness.
 
Last edited:
mancityvstoke said:
everyone knows some fucker at work who gets away with doing fuck all.

Managers seem to have really shit eyesight.
Click to expand...

If this example was in the NHS, then managers know exactly what is going on and their eyesight is perfectly fine... But the lazy shit has a HR department completely on their side and policies that make said manager pander to them, brew up for them, scratch their back (metaphorically as god forbid you step within their personal boundaries), massage their ego, give them the keys to your house and tell them to make themselves comfortable...

The trust I work for have scrapped 'return to work interviews' post sickness, to welcome back wellbeing conversations where we celebrate their return to the office.

No deterrent and absolutely no support for the manager with the shit eyesight to make it worth challenging any lazy twat...It's absolutely fucking crazy...
 
Chippy_boy said:
EDIT: Did you know that the rail regulator doesn't bother to regulate 1st class fares at all? Mind boggles. So they give out like 10 year rail franchises, offering customers no choice and let the train companies charge what they like. So now a 1st class return from Bristol to London - a 1 hour journey - is now £393 in the morning. Utter madness.
Click to expand...
In relation to my comment about banks, one of the reasons a ticket from Bristol to London is £393 is that the rolling stock leases are so expensive. There are 3 ROSCOs.

Eversholt (Chinese owned) who bought it from … wait for it… HSBC (Midland Bank as was).

Angel Trains owned by Royal Bank of Scotland and;

Porterbrook which is owned by Deutsche Bank and Lloyds TSB.

In most of the energy companies the main shareholder is Blackrock (who seem to own most of the world when you look into them).
 
Kompany Car said:
In relation to my comment about banks, one of the reasons a ticket from Bristol to London is £393 is that the rolling stock leases are so expensive. There are 3 ROSCOs.

Eversholt (Chinese owned) who bought it from … wait for it… HSBC (Midland Bank as was).

Angel Trains owned by Royal Bank of Scotland and;

Porterbrook which is owned by Deutsche Bank and Lloyds TSB.

In most of the energy companies the main shareholder is Blackrock (who seem to own most of the world when you look into them).
Click to expand...
Interesting, I didn't realise that.

You obviously know more about this than I do, so are the ROSCOs regulated? If they aren't and are ripping off the train companies, then that is another balls up.
 
mosssideblue said:
That really didn't answer the question. I know you are not in favour of labour.

Yes, they have made some bad mistakes (as all Governments do), but they have also achieved some good things along the way.

Again, are you not willing to recognise and agree to that
Click to expand...
I am I favour of Labour. I've voted Labour my entire life except the last election when even the blindest of voters could see what was coming. The man lied from the off. He was obviously dodgy, so I voted left wing.

In regards to apparent successes, I'm afraid people look at Governments like boxing matches. People don't say Fury won 1,2,5,8, 10 and 12. They he won the fight. Labour (particularly if the "adults I the room" had functioning coms) could point to some bits and bobs, some work place law fluffed out with some 'trans issues' or other stuff of little importance to the vast majority of the public. But ultimately, the people will look at the whole. Has life got easier, have services improved, are our kids safer, is war futher away, has inequality shrunk, are there less homeless people, are the jobs better paid. As a whole, people will say...no...stuffs got worse. Now I'm not say the Tories would do better, but the system dictates we are only allowed to vote for a very small window of representative, which of course is the overarching issue...democracy...kind of. When someone like Corbyn comes along and says I'll change stuff, everything is thrown at him. Absolutly EVERY arm of the establishment. Farrage and his ending the NHS, his othering and his ties to Trump.... JUST FINE!! Pushed relentlessly by the BBC... even Starmers 'Labour Party' stood aside to get him elected in Clacton. But Corbyn, the real enemy with his social reform, new economic ideas and realistic foreign policy.... ATTACK!!!!!!1000006320.png
 
maxwellblue said:
And when you thought the bellend that is Starmer couldn't get any worse he's now giving the vote to 16 year olds.
Click to expand...

what's wrong with that ? It was part of there manifesto.
16 year olds can work full time, have sex, have a passport, get married and join the army. why not allow them to vote.
 
Last edited:
philfodenswristsock said:
I am I favour of Labour. I've voted Labour my entire life except the last election when even the blindest of voters could see what was coming. The man lied from the off. He was obviously dodgy, so I voted left wing.

In regards to apparent successes, I'm afraid people look at Governments like boxing matches. People don't say Fury won 1,2,5,8, 10 and 12. They he won the fight. Labour (particularly if the "adults I the room" had functioning coms) could point to some bits and bobs, some work place law fluffed out with some 'trans issues' or other stuff of little importance to the vast majority of the public. But ultimately, the people will look at the whole. Has life got easier, have services improved, are our kids safer, is war futher away, has inequality shrunk, are there less homeless people, are the jobs better paid. As a whole, people will say...no...stuffs got worse. Now I'm not say the Tories would do better, but the system dictates we are only allowed to vote for a very small window of representative, which of course is the overarching issue...democracy...kind of. When someone like Corbyn comes along and says I'll change stuff, everything is thrown at him. Absolutly EVERY arm of the establishment. Farrage and his ending the NHS, his othering and his ties to Trump.... JUST FINE!! Pushed relentlessly by the BBC... even Starmers 'Labour Party' stood aside to get him elected in Clacton. But Corbyn, the real enemy with his social reform, new economic ideas and realistic foreign policy.... ATTACK!!!!!!View attachment 163249
Click to expand...
Judging by your criteria after just 12 months is a tad too soon. Let’s at least give them a term to see whether lives are better.
 
Kompany Car said:
Privatisation by any chance ? There's a reason why our energy production is owned by German, French and Spanish national operators. Likewise with water, railways etc. The wealth of a nation is the sum of its parts and a key part is its infrastructure as its inextricably linked to its means of production

All the privatisation did was allow institutions to sweat the assets for profit, so we end up where we are now with energy distribution equipment 60 years old and starting to fail as its not been replaced or maintained. Pumping and transit systems for clean and foul water leaking. OFGEM, OFWAT and the like as regulators have been completely ineffective at stopping this.
Click to expand...
Even though I'd love to I couldn't agree more.

This is not all Labour's doing but, they are the people in control right now and they are the people who will give guidance and direction about our country's way forward and.... they are not doing too well right now.
 
maxwellblue said:
And when you thought the bellend that is Starmer couldn't get any worse he's now giving the vote to 16 year olds.
Click to expand...
I read this twice and couldn't find any reference to the parallel introduction of intelligence tests to allow people to vote.......

www.bbc.co.uk

16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote in next general election - live updates

The government plans to lower the vote to 16, meaning around 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote at the next general election.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
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