Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,880]

 

 

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

 

Sounds about right. Fucking shameless...

 

[YoungWillz 21,024]

Starmer's praise for Thatcher is imo unlikely to go down well in Scotland. 

 

With an open goal as the SNP do their best to lose seats, he has handed them a lifeline.

 

Once again, we see Labour's true colours here. They want to appeal to Tory voters and win in England and possibly Wales, then claim to govern for the whole country.

 

I can see polls narrowing after this.

[TQR 14,384]

20 minutes ago, YoungWillz said:

Starmer's praise for Thatcher is imo unlikely to go down well in Scotland. 

 

With an open goal as the SNP do their best to lose seats, he has handed them a lifeline.

 

Once again, we see Labour's true colours here. They want to appeal to Tory voters and win in England and possibly Wales, then claim to govern for the whole country.

 

I can see polls narrowing after this.

Just the Torygraph doing their usual, as far as I can see. This was the only actual mention of T**tcher in the article:

 

[YoungWillz 21,024]

4 minutes ago, TQR said:

Just the Torygraph doing their usual, as far as I can see. This was the only actual mention of T**tcher in the article:

 

Well, he's wrong isn't he?

 

What he could have recognised as I do was that Thatcher was a statesperson who stuck to a policy agenda despite the slings and arrows of resistance against her and stuck to a path. 

 

Everything else was shit. She didn't encourage people's natural entrepreneurism. She made the country a massively service economy rather than a manufacturing powerhouse. She made millionaires out of the City workers, the stock traders and the bankers of London, whilst making wastelands of unemployment and poverty in large swathes of the country. She made it easier for credit to run rampant and for those supplying that credit to charge huge APR rates. For those who did try the business route, she made it easier for them to go bankrupt.

 

Her social policies were a disaster.

 

But then, we don't need to be told all of that. Some of us lived it. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest that it was advantageous to have entrepreneurship in a country so riven with inequality. Those who had money made more of it, those who didn't could get to fuck as far as she was concerned.

[The Old Crem 3,581]

2 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

Starmer's praise for Thatcher is imo unlikely to go down well in Scotland. 

 

With an open goal as the SNP do their best to lose seats, he has handed them a lifeline.

 

Once again, we see Labour's true colours here. They want to appeal to Tory voters and win in England and possibly Wales, then claim to govern for the whole country.

 

I can see polls narrowing after this.

The Same SNP that sided with Thatcher with the vote of confidence in 1979? 

[YoungWillz 21,024]

3 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

The Same SNP that sided with Thatcher with the vote of confidence in 1979? 

Don't get me started on Callaghan!

 

Dead unburied, fuel crisis, rubbish piled high in snow covered streets. Inflation rising, wage suppression - almost something Sunak would be proud of these days.

[TQR 14,384]

1 hour ago, YoungWillz said:

Well, he's wrong isn't he?

 

What he could have recognised as I do was that Thatcher was a statesperson who stuck to a policy agenda despite the slings and arrows of resistance against her and stuck to a path. 

 

Everything else was shit. She didn't encourage people's natural entrepreneurism. She made the country a massively service economy rather than a manufacturing powerhouse. She made millionaires out of the City workers, the stock traders and the bankers of London, whilst making wastelands of unemployment and poverty in large swathes of the country. She made it easier for credit to run rampant and for those supplying that credit to charge huge APR rates. For those who did try the business route, she made it easier for them to go bankrupt.

 

Her social policies were a disaster.

 

But then, we don't need to be told all of that. Some of us lived it. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest that it was advantageous to have entrepreneurship in a country so riven with inequality. Those who had money made more of it, those who didn't could get to fuck as far as she was concerned.

 

Yes, yes, all of that. She was poison. The slow-burning damage she did to this country explains why we're so in the shit today. Her cruel heart navigates the world we live in (© Declan McKenna). But Starmer didn't praise her. His point was merely that she at least acted with a purpose, unlike Dr Death. Sure, it would've been great if he'd have eviscerated her. Unfortunately, that ain't part of Labour's election strategy. The Torygraph making big headlines out of nothing, like this, and sparking outrage, like this, is another election strategy, for the Tories.

[Toast 16,129]

1 hour ago, TQR said:

The Torygraph making big headlines out of nothing, like this, and sparking outrage, like this, is another election strategy, for the Tories.

 

Especially as it's paywalled, so most people are reacting to carefully selected quotes and paraphrasing rather than what he actually said.

[The Old Crem 3,581]

1 hour ago, TQR said:

 

Yes, yes, all of that. She was poison. The slow-burning damage she did to this country explains why we're so in the shit today. Her cruel heart navigates the world we live in (© Declan McKenna). But Starmer didn't praise her. His point was merely that she at least acted with a purpose, unlike Dr Death. Sure, it would've been great if he'd have eviscerated her. Unfortunately, that ain't part of Labour's election strategy. The Torygraph making big headlines out of nothing, like this, and sparking outrage, like this, is another election strategy, for the Tories.

100%. They also gave a push notification for their article reporting the Labour criticism of what Starmer said just to hammer the point. 

[Mango 168]

4 hours ago, TQR said:

T**tcher

What's with the asterisks?

[TQR 14,384]

4 minutes ago, mymango said:

What's with the asterisks?

 

Because she's offensive.

 

What's with the serial facepalming?

[Mango 168]

6 hours ago, TQR said:

 

Because she's offensive.

 

What's with the serial facepalming?

Seriously? A former prime minister is "offensive" to you? Grow up. 
 

Thatcher was a great leader. Is that "offensive" enough for you?

[The Old Crem 3,581]

 

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

2 hours ago, mymango said:

Seriously? A former prime minister is "offensive" to you? Grow up. 
 

Thatcher was a great leader. Is that "offensive" enough for you?

 

Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak - all incredibly offensive in their own ways thanks. 

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

[Mango 168]

43 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak - all incredibly offensive in their own ways thanks. 

You must find the British electorate extremely offensive in that case.

 

Thatcher did a huge amount of good. 

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

55 minutes ago, mymango said:

You must find the British electorate extremely offensive in that case.

 

Thatcher did a huge amount of good. 

 

I often find their decisions offensive, yes. But mainly I find the shysters selling them snake oil the offensive ones. The ones who promise them simple solutions to complicated issues with no untoward consequences that they lap up. Bringing harmony to discord, getting Brexit done, supercharging growth and stopping the boats, for instance.

[maryportfuncity 10,639]

 

 

Hmm - d'ya think this will make any difference to the current situation?

 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,880]

Rachel Johnson chimes in on the inquiry

 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-inquiry-about-scapegoating-senior-government-figures-boris-johnsons-sister-says-13022254

 

Between this and the writings of the various client journalists and columnists in the likes of the Torygraph, Mail etc...  they know full well he's in for a (deservedly) tough time at the inquiry

[The Old Crem 3,581]

 

[The Old Crem 3,581]

 

[The Old Crem 3,581]

38.7K threshold for bringing spouses in from abroad is a very high figure. Probably the highest in the world and a figure that a lot of people can’t reach just by working lots of hours (Unlike the current figure of 18k.).

 

Effectively will end spousal visas form some counties where the majority do not earn 38.7K and have no prospect of doing so. No EU loophole left like before. (And what Danes do currently.)

[RoverAndOut 4,745]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

38.7K threshold for bringing spouses in from abroad is a very high figure. Probably the highest in the world and a figure that a lot of people can’t reach just by working lots of hours (Unlike the current figure of 18k.).

 

Effectively will end spousal visas form some counties where the majority do not earn 38.7K and have no prospect of doing so. No EU loophole left like before. (And what Danes do currently.)

 

No fear though, Rishi Sunak's wife would still get in. 

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,880]

 

 

Another ladder pulling cunt like Patel and Bravermann