On Brexit and foreign policy Corbyn is utterly useless and deserves criticism. On brexit the Tories are shredding the country whilst snuffling round the trough grubbing for personal advancement. There you go, a bit of balance right there.
fixed that for ya, but completely agree.
I am glad you make it clear you added 'foreign policy'. I wouldn't be able to, because I would be stuck on trying to understand what 'foreign' is. Being born in Kent and living in London, I would say that I am probably a cultural, social and political foreigner in this land although I am physically here. No way on earth do I consider myself to be part of the world inhabited by some posters on here, or that which is inhabited by most Tories. It is my personal tragedy that I have to exist in this current state.
You could move?
Is that a riff on 'if you don't like it fuck off'?
Maybe, a little, but if I Iived somewhere that made my life feel like a tragedy, or made me feel like a cultural, social and political foreigner I'd probably leave.
Every time I return to The UK it feels less and less like home, which is why I have no plans to return.
I suppose equally it could be suggested (not by me) that therefore you shouldn't bother coming back and should take up Chinese nationality.
It is a right enshrined in EU law that a native of country can moan about it all they like whereas woe-betide any immigrant moaning about their host country.
Incidentally @Stu_of_Kunming would it be possible to become a Chinese national, and if so how hard would the process be?
I think relocating is a better phrase than 'fucking off' but whatever works for you.
I have a friend who's in a similar position, he's tired of China and is heading back home soon (Virginia) but is distraught at the idea of being surrounded by Trump supporting idiots, he's been moaning about it for months, I just can't understand why he would choose to live in a place he knows he's going to hate. The world is full of fascinating places, go explore, you never know what you might ind.
He views the press and media the same way Trump does, of course, he is [edit per your political views] whereas Trump is [edit per your political views]. That's why he does so few proper interviews.
"New way of doing politics" my arse.
On another note, the way some on here view the Conservatives is actually hilarious. Like they are planning how to destroy the lives of the poor, and if possible, kill them, all day every day.
He views the press and media the same way Trump does, of course, he is [edit per your political views] whereas Trump is [edit per your political views]. That's why he does so few proper interviews.
"New way of doing politics" my arse.
On another note, the way some on here view the Conservatives is actually hilarious. Like they are planning how to destroy the lives of the poor, and if possible, kill them, all day every day.
So, go on then, what is Tory ideology? What informs their 'planning'?
Why not shuffle out of your comfort zone and discover it yourself rather than asking a tiny number of football forum posters willing to engage?
Its clear you know nothing of Lib Dem policies, outside of Guardian soundbites, so you may even change your opinion?
I asked my Tory ward local election candidate to her face when she canvassed last May and came to my door, and indeed the Tory candidate for the Lewisham East by election when he also called believe it or not.
What is Conservative ideology I asked both of them, and the simply didn't or didn't have an answer.
The Tory council candidate answered by saying, get this, 'Labour hold all the seats on Lewisham council bar the one Green. who doesn't turn up, so that is why you should vote Conservative'.
That was her ideology answer.
The Tory Parliamentary candidate answered by saying 'I am a local person, interested in local issues, I know Janet Daby is local too, but I am a local person as well.
That was his ideology answer.
OK, they came to my front door so you might say I was still in my comfort zone as it were, but I also attended the hustings for the past two Elections here (such as they were) and heard from the Lib Dems, the CPA, UKIP, the Libertarian party, Britain First, the Greens, the Radical party and a couple of independents, one standing on a Millwall ticket, and one retired barrister standing on a ticket on free access to law for all, oh and Howling Laud Hope as well, who memorably said 'if you don't usually vote, vote unusually'.
These were people I heard from directly, not via the Guardian or any other media outlet.
So I hope that puts your mind at rest.
And not that I am particularly expecting you to know, but whatever Tory ideology is, is a mystery isn't it?
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
So, go on then, what is Tory ideology? What informs their 'planning'?
Why not shuffle out of your comfort zone and discover it yourself rather than asking a tiny number of football forum posters willing to engage?
Its clear you know nothing of Lib Dem policies, outside of Guardian soundbites, so you may even change your opinion?
I asked my Tory ward local election candidate to her face when she canvassed last May and came to my door, and indeed the Tory candidate for the Lewisham East by election when he also called believe it or not.
What is Conservative ideology I asked both of them, and the simply didn't or didn't have an answer.
The Tory council candidate answered by saying, get this, 'Labour hold all the seats on Lewisham council bar the one Green. who doesn't turn up, so that is why you should vote Conservative'.
That was her ideology answer.
The Tory Parliamentary candidate answered by saying 'I am a local person, interested in local issues, I know Janet Daby is local too, but I am a local person as well.
That was his ideology answer.
OK, they came to my front door so you might say I was still in my comfort zone as it were, but I also attended the hustings for the past two Elections here (such as they were) and heard from the Lib Dems, the CPA, UKIP, the Libertarian party, Britain First, the Greens, the Radical party and a couple of independents, one standing on a Millwall ticket, and one retired barrister standing on a ticket on free access to law for all, oh and Howling Laud Hope as well, who memorably said 'if you don't usually vote, vote unusually'.
These were people I heard from directly, not via the Guardian or any other media outlet.
So I hope that puts your mind at rest.
And not that I am particularly expecting you to know, but whatever Tory ideology is, is a mystery isn't it?
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
A good post SHG, but there is a tendency to gloss over the catastrophic mis-management of the British economy before during and after the global crisis. Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling. To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
A good post SHG, but there is a tendency to gloss over the catastrophic mis-management of the British economy before during and after the global crisis. Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling. To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
You site Brown but you miss the point he was trying to make. Quantaive easing was the right idea it was just implemented in an ineffectual manner.
Are you suggesting he shouldn't of supported the banks? Does you hatred of labour blind you to how them going under would have effected ordinary people?
So, go on then, what is Tory ideology? What informs their 'planning'?
Why not shuffle out of your comfort zone and discover it yourself rather than asking a tiny number of football forum posters willing to engage?
Its clear you know nothing of Lib Dem policies, outside of Guardian soundbites, so you may even change your opinion?
I asked my Tory ward local election candidate to her face when she canvassed last May and came to my door, and indeed the Tory candidate for the Lewisham East by election when he also called believe it or not.
What is Conservative ideology I asked both of them, and the simply didn't or didn't have an answer.
The Tory council candidate answered by saying, get this, 'Labour hold all the seats on Lewisham council bar the one Green. who doesn't turn up, so that is why you should vote Conservative'.
That was her ideology answer.
The Tory Parliamentary candidate answered by saying 'I am a local person, interested in local issues, I know Janet Daby is local too, but I am a local person as well.
That was his ideology answer.
OK, they came to my front door so you might say I was still in my comfort zone as it were, but I also attended the hustings for the past two Elections here (such as they were) and heard from the Lib Dems, the CPA, UKIP, the Libertarian party, Britain First, the Greens, the Radical party and a couple of independents, one standing on a Millwall ticket, and one retired barrister standing on a ticket on free access to law for all, oh and Howling Laud Hope as well, who memorably said 'if you don't usually vote, vote unusually'.
These were people I heard from directly, not via the Guardian or any other media outlet.
So I hope that puts your mind at rest.
And not that I am particularly expecting you to know, but whatever Tory ideology is, is a mystery isn't it?
Funny you should say that. The two people I had the longest conversations with after the hustings in Handen Road 2017, Emily Firth, and this year in Catford, Lucy Salek were the Liberal candidates.
Quite surprising and similar conversations, because I asked both if they were worried about being trusted after the U Turn on their student fees promise when the coalition came in. What was surprising was they didn't say that was then but this is now, or even that it was a tough political choice and they have regrets, or even that they can be trusted now or at least want to re-build trust. What both of them did do was go into a long routine about how the £9000 a year system was actually very good after all, with caveats here and there, it was proper Vince Cable. You may well ask if any politician can be trusted which is a very fair question, but in my interactions with my two most recent Liberal candidates I was very unimpressed, not only didn't they engage with my trust question, but gave me the fees guff which I know to be crap because of the ability to set interest rates on student loans of some 6.3%. My son is paying his off dutifully, and owes more at the end of the year than at the start. It may seem to you that I am politically a one trick pony, but you will have to take my word that I engage a little more than the average.
It turns out - quite by chance I believe - that they were absolutely correct. Good to hear you really seeking out the wider picture - many of your 'brain cell' posts paint a different picture.
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
A good post SHG, but there is a tendency to gloss over the catastrophic mis-management of the British economy before during and after the global crisis. Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling. To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
You site Brown but you miss the point he was trying to make. Quantaive easing was the right idea it was just implemented in an ineffectual manner.
Are you suggesting he shouldn't of supported the banks? Does you hatred of labour blind you to how them going under would have effected ordinary people?
No, I'm not. The point I was making was that Labour devotees try to gloss over Labour's mis-management of the economy, as indeed you are trying to, despite the evidence of Brown, Campbell, Blair and Mandelson in their 'best selling' memoirs.
There's many a poster on this thread banging on about tories in bed with big business - all I'm saying is that it is the nature of government of any colour so to do.
(mind you theres a fair few extremists banging on about right win press influencing millions whilst conveniently ignoring Bliars three election wins.)
To me the economy is not the whole story, very possibly less important to me than to others, but you mention mis-management of the economy. isn't that what they all do? Mis-manage it?
It turns out - quite by chance I believe - that they were absolutely correct.
Really? Correct in not engaging with my question about trust?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No, as I have shown earlier in this thread, the fee rise has ( accidentally in my opinion) lead to a much greater uptake in university attendance by low income students than ever before. So greater equality. As with their drive and success in raising the income tax threshold - something Labour failed to do in the previous decade.
Your son must be on a great wage. FT says 70+% will never pay a penny.
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
A good post SHG, but there is a tendency to gloss over the catastrophic mis-management of the British economy before during and after the global crisis. Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling. To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
You site Brown but you miss the point he was trying to make. Quantaive easing was the right idea it was just implemented in an ineffectual manner.
Are you suggesting he shouldn't of supported the banks? Does you hatred of labour blind you to how them going under would have effected ordinary people?
No, I'm not. The point I was making was that Labour devotees try to gloss over Labour's mis-management of the economy, as indeed you are trying to, despite the evidence of Brown, Campbell, Blair and Mandelson in their 'best selling' memoirs.
There's many a poster on this thread banging on about tories in bed with big business - all I'm saying is that it is the nature of government of any colour so to do.
(mind you theres a fair few extremists banging on about right win press influencing millions whilst conveniently ignoring Bliars three election wins.)
Sorry for not conforming to your stereotype, but how did I gloss over the mis-management? I said it was implemented in ineffectual manner and you can search my history to see posts about successive governments using the housing market to cover poor management of the economy. Which is the one of the reasons they had no choice but to bail out the banks.
I must of missed you point because it read like you were suggesting they did QE to support the bad culture of private enterprise by effectively nationalising some of the largest companies in the UK.
It turns out - quite by chance I believe - that they were absolutely correct.
Really? Correct in not engaging with my question about trust?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No, as I have shown earlier in this thread, the fee rise has ( accidentally in my opinion) lead to a much greater uptake in university attendance by low income students than ever before. So greater equality. As with their drive and success in raising the income tax threshold - something Labour failed to do in the previous decade.
Your son must be on a great wage. FT says 70+% will never pay a penny.
I think you have mis read what i have been saying, or perhaps being deliberately obtuse yourself. Try reading back.
I touched on it earlier but the Tory ideology such as it is, is to protect the interests of the establishment and money. They continue to get away with it by using the mantra of trickle down economics. It’s never worked but it’s plausible so they wheel it out.
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
A good post SHG, but there is a tendency to gloss over the catastrophic mis-management of the British economy before during and after the global crisis. Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling. To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
What you seem to miss is that a number of former Labour voters were as cheesed off with Blair/Brown as anybody else. What we learnt however is that they were still 10 times better than any of the governments that preceded or followed.
It's easy to see the military might be a bit tetchy though, having had the horrible snatch land rovers replaced by the foxhound which breaks down in hot weather. Maybe a tractor would actually be a viable option? Last year the US Army placed an order with JCB for 1,600 of these:
So, perhaps he's not completely potty?
(There are no shares in MF, it's just a subsidiary of AGCO.)
Comments
It is a right enshrined in EU law that a native of country can moan about it all they like whereas woe-betide any immigrant moaning about their host country.
Incidentally @Stu_of_Kunming would it be possible to become a Chinese national, and if so how hard would the process be?
I have a friend who's in a similar position, he's tired of China and is heading back home soon (Virginia) but is distraught at the idea of being surrounded by Trump supporting idiots, he's been moaning about it for months, I just can't understand why he would choose to live in a place he knows he's going to hate. The world is full of fascinating places, go explore, you never know what you might ind.
Actually only allowing C4 to ask one question. Democracy right there.
Or the ghastly O'Brien.
"New way of doing politics" my arse.
On another note, the way some on here view the Conservatives is actually hilarious. Like they are planning how to destroy the lives of the poor, and if possible, kill them, all day every day.
Many a true word spoken in jest.
What informs their 'planning'?
Its clear you know nothing of Lib Dem policies, outside of Guardian soundbites, so you may even change your opinion?
What is Conservative ideology I asked both of them, and the simply didn't or didn't have an answer.
The Tory council candidate answered by saying, get this, 'Labour hold all the seats on Lewisham council bar the one Green. who doesn't turn up, so that is why you should vote Conservative'.
That was her ideology answer.
The Tory Parliamentary candidate answered by saying 'I am a local person, interested in local issues, I know Janet Daby is local too, but I am a local person as well.
That was his ideology answer.
OK, they came to my front door so you might say I was still in my comfort zone as it were, but I also attended the hustings for the past two Elections here (such as they were) and heard from the Lib Dems, the CPA, UKIP, the Libertarian party, Britain First, the Greens, the Radical party and a couple of independents, one standing on a Millwall ticket, and one retired barrister standing on a ticket on free access to law for all, oh and Howling Laud Hope as well, who memorably said 'if you don't usually vote, vote unusually'.
These were people I heard from directly, not via the Guardian or any other media outlet.
So I hope that puts your mind at rest.
And not that I am particularly expecting you to know, but whatever Tory ideology is, is a mystery isn't it?
I genuinely don’t think they set out to “harm” the most vulnerable in society but their policies always do. The crash was a godsend to the Tories. A chance for austerity for all. All in it together. Wages stagnated, people in fear of losing what they had so they tow the line. Those most in need most affected because they have the smallest voice.
The oddest thing about the Tories in this incarnation is that they always claim to be the party of law and order and yet the police service has been decimated.
Brexit, mismanagement and ministerial resignations and utter chaos even within their own ranks yet they are still in with a good shout when the election comes. What does that say about Corbyns Labour.
As for the tories - all you need to know about them is contained within their official online shop. Beyond parody.
https://shop.conservatives.com/collections/labours-double-whammy
Even Brown himself acknowledges he was very wrong in his inept handling.
To allow access to this fact I have chosen an Guardian piece by Simon Lee;
''He may have been in office, but Brown did not use the political power at his disposal when given the opportunity. In this regard he was simply occupying the common ground first laid down by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph in the mid-1970s. In its austerity agenda, the Cameron-Clegg government has also occupied this common ground.
Brown’s subsequent account of the crisis, Beyond the Crash: Beyond The First Crisis of Globalisation, documents his personal realisation that had he been bolder and trusted his own intellectual judgment and political instincts to push for a much more radical response to the crisis, he could have gone down in political history not only as one of the greatest peacetime prime ministers but as a statesman of major global significance and reputation.
Instead, Brown and his chancellor, Alistair Darling, superintended a bailout for failing banks, whose total value reached £1.162tn at its peak. By the end of March 2014 that figure had fallen dramatically, but still amounted to £123bn. The Brown government also presided over the Bank of England giving £375bn of cheap credit to the banks through the policy of quantitative easing.
No other sector of the UK economy had ever received such levels of support in peacetime. However, the Brown government’s strategic decision to privilege banking over all other sectors of the UK economy, and to subordinate its wider British modernisation agenda to the defence of the interests of the City of London, was simply in accordance with the priorities of every UK government since 1945.''
Now why would Brown prioritise banking? To help the common man or to shlep up to fat cats and big business? Or to try and cover up utterly incompetent management of the British economy during the boom years?
Are you suggesting he shouldn't of supported the banks? Does you hatred of labour blind you to how them going under would have effected ordinary people?
Quite surprising and similar conversations, because I asked both if they were worried about being trusted after the U Turn on their student fees promise when the coalition came in.
What was surprising was they didn't say that was then but this is now, or even that it was a tough political choice and they have regrets, or even that they can be trusted now or at least want to re-build trust. What both of them did do was go into a long routine about how the £9000 a year system was actually very good after all, with caveats here and there, it was proper Vince Cable.
You may well ask if any politician can be trusted which is a very fair question, but in my interactions with my two most recent Liberal candidates I was very unimpressed, not only didn't they engage with my trust question, but gave me the fees guff which I know to be crap because of the ability to set interest rates on student loans of some 6.3%. My son is paying his off dutifully, and owes more at the end of the year than at the start.
It may seem to you that I am politically a one trick pony, but you will have to take my word that I engage a little more than the average.
Good to hear you really seeking out the wider picture - many of your 'brain cell' posts paint a different picture.
The point I was making was that Labour devotees try to gloss over Labour's mis-management of the economy, as indeed you are trying to, despite the evidence of Brown, Campbell, Blair and Mandelson in their 'best selling' memoirs.
There's many a poster on this thread banging on about tories in bed with big business - all I'm saying is that it is the nature of government of any colour so to do.
(mind you theres a fair few extremists banging on about right win press influencing millions whilst conveniently ignoring Bliars three election wins.)
No, as I have shown earlier in this thread, the fee rise has ( accidentally in my opinion) lead to a much greater uptake in university attendance by low income students than ever before. So greater equality. As with their drive and success in raising the income tax threshold - something Labour failed to do in the previous decade.
Your son must be on a great wage. FT says 70+% will never pay a penny.
I must of missed you point because it read like you were suggesting they did QE to support the bad culture of private enterprise by effectively nationalising some of the largest companies in the UK.
Try reading back.
It's easy to see the military might be a bit tetchy though, having had the horrible snatch land rovers replaced by the foxhound which breaks down in hot weather. Maybe a tractor would actually be a viable option? Last year the US Army placed an order with JCB for 1,600 of these:
So, perhaps he's not completely potty?
(There are no shares in MF, it's just a subsidiary of AGCO.)