Anything Political


Recommended Posts

Well I agree some members of the audience selected to question Corbyn (there were sycophants too), were a bit of that ilk but there was nothing sublte about the things he said or his ideas. This sort of programme is always going to be a bit of a crapshoot for the participants. They can only give outlines, there's no time for detail.

You almost got the Churchill quote right...   ;)…    he said it about the actions of Russia too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Actually they are about midtable and only a smidge behind the EU average. 

 

OK. I won't argue the actual figure.. but I think the point is made, that even allowing for Corbyn's proposals does not amount to what Kuenssberg calls a 'massively inflated State'.. since most of it is simply a correction.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Her private life is no concern of your's, mine or anyone else.

Writing things like this is beneath you with no indication that she's also presently 'banging' the deputy leader of the Brexit Party.

 

OK.  Yes I agree I was a bit OTT there.  However, I still feel that there ought to be some way to stop the constant stream of 'experts', 'journalists', etc. etc.. who come up on QT and clearly have an agenda which is deeper thsan their superficial/declared position.  Also, assorted representatives of 'Think Tanks' with names like 'The Institute for'' whatever.. which often are in reality campaigning organisations in disguise.  It all needs to be clearer. Not all viewers are politically aware geniuses like wot you an me is. 

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

And the difference between an inflated promise and a falsehood is? The both look like lies to me.

 

It's an interesting point and I don't think there's a 'black and white' answer.  All politicians say things to put their policies in a good light.  Whether you believe their policies will actually improve things and for whom is a bit less clear and depends ore on your own circumstances and your political beliefs.  All politicians are reluctant to say things which will weaken their argument.  Is silence the same as a lie?  However.. there are many things which are clearly untrue and it seems to me that the single politician whose deliberate lies are most prevalent at present is Johnson.. closely followed by Gove, Rees-Mogg and Farage.. unless we want to talk about Trump.. which I really would rather not.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Because they can't, they don't have the ammunition.  The same quote mentions debt since 2010. Not fair, it's like me blaming Brown for the crash of 2008 when borrowing went totally out of control. We have talked of this so I'll not rehash it. The Tories came to power after Brown left them with a poison chalice. They didn't handle it well but,  the rise in debt started to slow.

 

Brown, as you correctly state, did not cause the crash.  He took remedial action which was largely praised by the international community and by economists.  We were actually coming out of recession.. when the Tories sneaked into power only with the support of the Lib Dems, who, from a fiscal perspective are Conservative anyway..  They then proceeded to re-write history and it is that which annoys me. Labour did not leave the Tories a 'poison chalice', so much as a job which was partially completed.  You say the Tories didn't handle it well.  I say the Tories combined their hatred of public expenditure/services, their hatred of local govt and their contempt for the poor and underpriveleged, with their schoolboy grasp of economics and their obsession with a 'free market/private' economy to create ten years of misery.. which in turn caused exactly the misguided and wrongly targeted discontent which has led to the current political crisis.

 

19 hours ago, Brew said:

They will, for a short time only.

 

Clearly not so, unless they want to invite legal action.  As an e.g., Govt prevented councils from using the proceeds of 'right to buy' to build replacement housing.  As far as I know, no council managed to overcome that.  Same would apply to directed funding. for transport.

However.. what you might be referring to is the more recent Tory tactic of giving local councils less money and not 'ring fencing' it, whilst also loading more responsibilties onto them and then cynically lying "We've given them enough cash.. it's up to them how they spend it".

19 hours ago, Brew said:

Perhaps Col because it's only you and few others that consider it so and are concerned. Were it worthy of more attention I've no doubt it would get it.

 

I see it much more as a classic case of the Press et.al. setting the agenda.  It's a pretty 'fuzzy' topic, because most people have little clue as to Local Authority funding, or indeed the range of statutory obligations Local Authorities have placed on them.  The default position for many is to moan constantly about the council either 'wasting' too much on this,, or spending too little on that, with little real understanding of the actual financial causes of crumbling streets, closed libraries, lack of youth services, etc. People are generally hacked off.. but don't grasp the source of the problems, and while Brexit and the Punch and Judy Corbyn v Johnson saga is still on, the press won't raise it it as a national issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Brew said:

Well I agree some members of the audience selected to question Corbyn (there were sycophants too), were a bit of that ilk but there was nothing sublte about the things he said or his ideas. This sort of programme is always going to be a bit of a crapshoot for the participants. They can only give outlines, there's no time for detail.

You almost got the Churchill quote right...   ;)…    he said it about the actions of Russia too!

 

I know what Churchill was 'on about'.. it just seemed appropriate. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Akcherly... I just looked at a few Winston Churchill quotes.  I like this one:

 

Quote

A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.

 

Churchill was a curious mix of great wit, and unspeakable arrogance.  He was right, I think as a wartime leader.. in WW2 .. rather less distinguished in his actions in WW1, especially the Dardanelles disaster.  I recall a documentary some years ago which contrasted the reforming and modernising First Sea Lord, Admiral Jackie Fisher.. with the typically Victorian approach of  First Lord of the Admiralty Churchill.. despite Churchill's relative youth.

 

Interesting stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

However, I still feel that there ought to be some way to stop the constant stream of 'experts', 'journalists', etc.

 

I think we have discussed this before. We both know QT is not there to 'educate or inform', it's there to pander to the great unwashed who seem to take a perverse delight in controversy and confrontation. To this end participants are deliberately chosen as polar opposites so the producers merely light the blue touch paper and stand back. I might also suggest the only one you object to are the ones you disagree with?

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

He took remedial action which was largely praised by the international community and by economists.

 

He did and he was, but I think it was more by luck than judgement. He is not the great economic guru he thinks he is (I saved the world), if he was he would not have sold most (70%) of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices defying all advice to limit the sale to 20% - and act for which he was universally criticised.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Labour did not leave the Tories a 'poison chalice', so much as a job which was partially completed

 

I think they did. Look at this graph and the meteoric rise in borowing under Labour followed by the consequent actions of the Tories getting it back under control.

 

EgNr16b.png

 

An Churchill wuz a rotter anall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yebbut. I think you re ascribing actions and consequences which are tenuous, because you have no way of knowing what would have happened otherwise.

 

Look at Labour's borrowing in the decade before the crash.  It wasn't excessive and was lower than the Tories record up to 1997.  Admittedly it shot up after the crash and we are agreed why that is so. 

What you cannot say with any certainty is that a Labour Govt, or a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would not have been just as successful in bringing borrowing down. 

 

I think however that we can be pretty certain that Labour or a Lab Lib coalition would not have set out to use the borrowing as an excuse for austerity and the wholesale dismantling, selling off and asset stripping of our country.

 

In turn, it's likely that the discontent which the likes of Farage and co. have tapped into by falsely blaming the EU for problems inflicted by the Tories, would not have existed.. and Brexit would not have been an issue.

 

So.. using the same facts as you, I'm able to come to an entirely different conclusion.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a bit young to know a lot about Mr. Churchill.  I do know that my maternal grandfather (1st ww marine) and my dad (2nd ww navy destroyer) didn't have kind words for him.  Mostly to the effect that he liked war as long as he was not on the front lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Look at Labour's borrowing in the decade before the crash.  It wasn't excessive and was lower than the Tories record up to 1997. 

 

And do you not think that the Billions raised by Gordon selling the majority of our  gold reserves had something to do with that?

 

55 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

What you cannot say with any certainty is that a Labour Govt, or a Labour/Lib Dem coalition would not have been just as successful in bringing borrowing down. 

 

I think however that we can be pretty certain that Labour or a Lab Lib coalition would not have set out to use the borrowing as an excuse for austerity and the wholesale dismantling, selling off and asset stripping of our country.

 

So what I cannot say with certainty about borrowing, I can say with certainty how they would use it?

What I CAN say with certainty is that a non-event cannot be a certainty!   :Fool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a war leader Loppy he was excellent. Like Thatcher it was a case of the right person in the right place at the right time. However both were pretty awful as peacetime PM's and horrible people to boot.

Reading of Churchill and his exploits as a young man is like reading the script for a film but read between the lines and his arrogance and dislike of ordinary working class people is staggering.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brew said:

And do you not think that the Billions raised by Gordon selling the majority of our  gold reserves had something to do with that?

 

Whatever the merits or otherwise of his Gold sale, and it is still controversial.. it raised £3.5 Bn approx, over several years, which in terms of GDP even then.. is equal to the Square Root of Bugger All.

 

14 minutes ago, Brew said:

 

What I CAN say with the certainty is that a non-event cannot be a certainty!   

 

True, but it's equally true that an event, cannot be positively deemed preferable to an unknown alternative...  :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Brew said:

As a war leader Loppy he was excellent. Like Thatcher it was a case of the right person in the right place at the right time. However both were pretty awful as peacetime PM's and horrible people to boot.

Reading of Churchill and his exploits as a young man is like reading the script for a film but read between the lines and his arrogance and dislike of ordinary working class people is staggering.

 

True. Also, his heroics in certain campaigns across the Empire, were all self-reported.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

it raised £3.5 Bn approx, which in terms of GDP even then.. is equal to the Square Root of Bugger All.

 

Every little helps as the old lady said … and in 97/98 net borrowing was £7.5 billion. £3.5  billion hardly seems insignificant and kept borrowing in minus figures for the next three or four years.

 

Please Santa can I have the square root of bugger all?    ;)

 

30 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

True, but it's equally true that an event, cannot be positively deemed preferable to an unknown alternative...  :)

 

Aha! You are Edward Lear and I claim my five pounds!

Link to post
Share on other sites

net-debt-political-92-2019.jpg

 

 

Get out of that without moving!!!.

 

Also, just taking bald figures for debt, without also considering other factors, is misleading.  The economy was booming under Labour.  The Tories crashed it with austerity and still show no signs of doing anything to boost home investment, manufacturing, training and education of the work force etc.  They are still intent on continuing to cut the dwindling revenue they have created until they disappear up their own borrowing requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was speaking of borrowing to pay for their boom and bust spending but OK, let's look at the graph. The crash happened in 08. The meteoric rise  in debt, (the result of the crash) is their for all to see, however two years later the amount of debt is rising at the same rate and possibly increasing, despite Brown's famous prudence.

The debit is still rising in 2010, but as we can see the rate at which it's increasing rapidly begins to slow down when that nice Mr Osbourne takes charge. 

 

Was the economy booming? or where we living on borrowed money? According to the ONS figures we were pretty much stagnating - still are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brew said:

The debit is still rising in 2010, but as we can see the rate at which it's increasing rapidly begins to slow down when that nice Mr Osbourne takes charge. 

 

  As I recall, Broon had little option but to borrow heavily in order to prop up UK banks, to prevent ordinaty accot holders from being impoverished.  So.. ironically, the political right were quick to grab the money, whilst simultaneously slagging off their benefactor.

 

  I have no doubt that the Tories would have done the same, though thewy'd ost likely have raised the cash from the poor..as they always have.

 

And after the Coalition 'got in'.. as I recall they weren't exactly eager to extract recompense from the banks for the public money spent on them to correct their reckless behaviour.  In fact.. IIRC, the Tories were bloody quick to flog off one of the nationalised banks (RBS? I'm open to correction) as soon as it returned to profitability.. but before it had repaid the exchequer... Would the Govt write off a Benefit Overpayment so quickly?  Of course not.

 

Typical Tory trick.  Nationalise the Debt.. then immediately Privatise the Profit. 

 

And they think we don't notice...

 

Also, no serious attempt was made to hold those responsible to account, or to recover the obscene bonuses many still acquired even as the edifice crumbled around them.   It is that sort of blatant contempt for the rest of the economy and society at large which angers me and many others.

 

I think now is a good time to emphatically state that I do not envy the rich, I do not begrudge honestly earned wealth.. etc.. and I do not make these arguments for my personal enrichment.  I'm not wealthy, and I doubt I'll ever be so but I'm OK.. and I can sleep nights....

 

I don't oppose 'business', in all its forms..and I accept that we live in a Capitalist world.  But I do vehemently oppose exploitation and profiteering.  If you can't make money honestly.. you stay broke.. or become a crook. Capitalism cannot be allowed free reign and must be moderated by socially responsible policies.  Just read Dickens.. especially a A Christmas Carol

 

The reason I argue against the political right, is because they hold the majority in contempt and will screw them at any opportunity.  They always have,.. and they always will.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're at it..

 

I watched last night's 'BBC Question Time 'Leader's Special'.  Johnson was loudly jeered when he was asked a question about honesty by an audience member.  Oddly.. when he same clip was played on Saturday Lunchtime News. the jeering was edited out.  even I  noticed that...

 

It's since been pointed out that further editing by the BBC was employed to make Johnson seem more confident etc.. when for much of the time he was floundering and blustering.

 

So. the Tories have the Press on their side...

They have Big Business on their side.

They have the BBC on their side...

 

But we get told that Labour is unfairly 'slagging off' the Tories?

 

Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DJ360 said:

n fact.. IIRC, the Tories were bloody quick to flog off one of the nationalised banks (RBS? I'm open to correction) as soon as it returned to profitability.. but before it had repaid the exchequer...

 

Actually Col the treasury still holds over 62% of the RBS shares and, quote:-

 

'Private investors, not taxpayers, should bear the risk of companies such as RBS, and that’s why we’ve committed to returning the bank to private ownership. But we will only sell RBS shares when it represents value for money for the taxpayer.”

 

Seems reasonable...

 

Labour wants to keep it, considers the money to be 'government funds' and can therefore make it mandatory they loan money to small businesses.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to the the Question Time special..Swinson was put to the sword..

Biased Beeb, indirectly trying to fool people to gain Labour votes..

 

DJ360.. edited content is standard practice. Politics live.. too afternoon news to Ten a clock news will suffer at least two edits..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Churchill was a curious mix of great wit, and unspeakable arrogance. 

 

The arrogance, but not the wit, transferred to his grandchildren as well - one of them at least. I remember attending a formal AGM lunch of the Food & Drink Federation at the London Grosvenor House Hotel where he was guest speaker (early 1990s). I remember he was Minister for Ag, Fish & Food at the time. I know I had flown over to the UK specifically to attend.

 

Anyway, his whole after-lunch speech was completely disparaging regarding the industry which had invited him to attend the event and he received a quite lukewarm reception (obviously). After the lunch, I happened to be leaving at the same time as him, walking alongside him and his secretary (or flunkie). I overheard him say "Let's get out of this place and rejoin the human race back at the House." Considering the rabble that occupy  'The House' (as beautifully interpreted by Banksy in this Question Time painting) I think that was (and is) a bit much.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, HSR said:

What was that film? Something to do with a new commodity? Was it something to do with meat? Starred Peter Sellers if memory serves...

I don't understand your question. If you're referring to my post,  it wasn't a film, it happened at the Annual General Meeting of the Food & Drink Federation - a trade body representing the major companies involved in the manufacture of food and drinks. The company I worked for at the time was (is) a manufacturer of food flavours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brew said:

 

Actually Col the treasury still holds over 62% of the RBS shares and, quote:-

 

'Private investors, not taxpayers, should bear the risk of companies such as RBS, and that’s why we’ve committed to returning the bank to private ownership. But we will only sell RBS shares when it represents value for money for the taxpayer.”

 

It does seem reasonable, but this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescue_package .. makes interesting reading.. from which:

 

Quote

The shares in RBS and Lloyds have now started to be sold off. Labour has criticised the Conservative government for making a huge loss for taxpayers on the sale of the RBS shares. The government claimed that this will be more than made up for by a profit on the Lloyds shares and that waiting for longer to sell the RBS shares would not necessarily lead to a higher price for them.[23][24] The loss to the tax payer of the first round of RBS share sell off is stated by the BBC to be £1.07bn compared to when they were sold.[25] Other estimates were that the loss to taxpayers,[26] and a consequent subsidy to private shareholders in the bank, was £2 billion.[27]

 

So.. at least in the eyes of some.. they are selling RBS shares at a loss to the exchequer.. and therefore to the taxpayer. They are also 'subsidising private shareholders'. So the net effect is, as so often with the Tories.. to Nationalise debt and Privatise Profit... again... at the expense of the wider population. I accept that it was unthinkable to let the banks fail.. but I remain disgusted that not only have few.. if any of those responsible for the crash been held to account.. but most of them seem to have profited from it.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Labour wants to keep it, considers the money to be 'government funds' and can therefore make it mandatory they loan money to small businesses.

 

Also seems reasonable.  As I understand it, it is still difficult for many to get loans of any type at sensible interest rates.  Odd that the banks were so eager to 'profit' from the trade in 'Toxic' debt.. yet are now so reluctant to lend to 'normal' borrowers.  I'm also still amazed at the disparity between interest rates for savers. and those on loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HSR said:

In regard to the the Question Time special..Swinson was put to the sword..

Biased Beeb, indirectly trying to fool people to gain Labour votes..

 

I don't understand your point.  Swinson was her own worst enemy and had no answers to reasonable questions.  How is that BBC bias?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HSR said:

DJ360.. edited content is standard practice. Politics live.. too afternoon news to Ten a clock news will suffer at least two edits.

 

There's editing..and editing.  They often vary the length of pieces as the news emphasis and priorities change during the day (at least they could use that as some sort of justification)  But to deliberately edit out jeers at Johnson is simple and clear manipulation and can only be interpreted as an attempt to make Johnson look better.  It stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cliff Ton changed the title to Anything Political

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...