Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[navyblueshorts]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

I'll bite. Of course having the means to get out is going to favour those so able to do so. The same was the case in Nazi Germany. What of it? Of course, you'd be the first onto the front lines, I'm sure.

Who are these Ukranians you see then? Men of fighting age? Women and children?

I'd be the first on the bus out of the country.

And yes several are men of fighting age. I'm not going to die on this hill and think anyone has the right to seek sanctuary, but just doubt those offering up their homes got what they were expecting.

In reality if the whole of Ukraine needed refuge I think it should be provided.

Appreciate the honesty.

Even if some were of fighting age, we have no idea as to their circumstances. This sort of thing (and whether some Ukranian should be eternally damned having joined an SS fighting unit in WWII) is easy to pontificate on from the safety of a nice chair in a safe country, but we really have no idea what we'd do until and unless confronted by the same circumstances/choices.

If the UK residents offering homes didn't get what they expected, whose fault is that? More likely that of our politicians etc.

[super_realist]

Why would I need to keep quiet? Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch and accepts the claims of "asylum" to a significantly higher percentage of so called asylum seekers than any other European Country. That's not to say it takes more, rather that it rejects far  fewer claims. 
It also spends significantly more per person than any other European country by accomodating them in hotels and private accomodation rather than France housing them rightly in tents

If I was an economic migrant I'd do the same, but isn't it funny how virtually all of these "asylum seekers" are young men who hardly look very distraught leaving behind their families in such awful and insufferable conditions back home?

People claiming "asylum" aren't even permitted to work, they're just sitting on their arses in nice hotels at your expense, so hardly sending money back home.

[superflyweight]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

Bit like your "asylum seekers" Mac, always young  men "escaping the most horrific situations in their home countries" only to leave their womenfolk and families behind to "suffer"

Always? No women, children or old men in the asylum system then? None?

[McLaren]

Super

To be clear I share none of your views on asylum seekers and merely found it a little amusing that some "do gooders" didn't quite get what they thought they would.

[JuliusHMarx]

Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch

There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is not the case, but I don't expect you to research it, or, if you do, I don't expect you to believe it.

[Duty281]

That was just fixing the mess of the time when 309 people outvoted 301 people. I'd personally say 17.4 million over 16.1 million, when the side of 16.1 million had the advantages of incumbency, money and the establishment, is a lot more decisive than 309 over 301.

Yeah that's worked out great hasn't it (and I do say with some retrospective regret that I was one of the 17.4)

Corbyn wouldn't have been stopped by the establishment.

Oh yes he would

Corbyn's biggest problem was always that he couldn't actually lead,

Sadly that's hard to disagree with, He did have principles, however much anyone might disagree, he had compassion, he had a lot of the right ideas on what needed to be done, in retrospect though  even I would concede that whilst he was great at standing up and rebelling...standing up and LEADING...yes he struggled. Some people argue he was good because party membership grew hugely under him. I don't personally buy that as a determining factor of good leadership, in fact quite the opposite. You fuel the ego of a populist leader (left or right) and it makes them think they can do things they really can't (or shouldn't).

I do wonder what would have happened if Corbyn, with his vaccine hesitant and pro-Russia views, had been in charge during this period of history. Johnson was bad, but Corbyn....

This one is brilliant, having just admitted that Corbyn lacked good leadership, I'm now going to have to backtrack somewhat and say at least he wouldn't have been as calamitous as the tailspinning pathological liar who put a bloody RUSSIAN Oligarchs son in the House of Lords FFS!! Yes a Russian in one of our legislative chambers, kinda makes any Corbyn pro-Russia accusations seem like a total projection. And of course then there was Truss and Kamikwasi...Corbyn would really have to have worked hard at screwing things up worse than they did.

And, I know you're very far to the left,

Not that far and in places not left at all

but it's ludicrous to suggest Corbyn wouldn't have been allowed to move further left than the centre right.

Nope we're a selfish centre right country and that will NEVER change in our lifetimes

We barely have a centre-right government right now. Hilarious that anyone thinks the current Tories - a party of high tax, mass immigration (highest in the UK's history), big government, big spend -  are right-wing, or even far-right.

Yeah, I can just picture Suella in a Che Guevara t-shirt...seriously!! Of course they're right wing and want to be further right, they're just absolutely Poopie at it though. Either that or 13 years of slavish adherence to neoliberal dogma has now illustrated very well the flaws in that ideology, flaws that have created a scenario where they have to be interventionist to save total collapse. Look around you... what's working better than it was 13 years ago (apart from Executive pay reviews)? Health? Education? Utilities? Transport? Immigration? and remember this cabal have been in power for 13 years add Thatcher, Major, Blair & Brown (yes those 2 as well) and we've had over 40 years of top economists telling us that neoliberal economics is the way to run societies, it's not, it's really not, the ideology has had a sticking plaster on it since 2008. I don't know the answer, neither does Sunak and neither does Starmer, unlike them 2 though I know the answer isn't "more of the same"

1) How would Corbyn have been stopped by the establishment? Who are the establishment and what, specifically, would they have prevented him from doing?

2) Corbyn threw out his principles at the first sign of pressure, whether it was not singing the national anthem, or suddenly supporting the EU. Agree that party membership growth was irrelevant; Labour's biggest defeat since the war was relevant. Disagree that Corbyn had many right ideas. It was the same reheated failures of the 70s.

3) And we both know I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Johnson threw wholesale support behind Ukraine in their fight against Russia, and Zelenskyy/the Ukrainians have been very grateful because of it.

Would Corbyn have done the same had he been PM? I very much doubt it, considering he's given TV interviews on channels that are pro-Putin since the conflict began, and signed an open letter that didn't endorse the nature or conduct of the Russian *and* Ukrainian regimes. Corbyn's pro-Russia past is well known, so certainly not projection.

4) If you consider the Tories right-wing, you have to be pretty far to the left.

5) Selfish centre-right country that will never change in our lifetimes?

So, selfish...how, exactly? If you mean internationally, the UK gives over £10billion a year in foreign aid, and, as previously noted, has given wholesale support to the Ukrainians. If you mean inwardly, I would also have to disagree, as we're a very charitable nation.

And the notion of being centre-right certainly has changed, and a lot has changed over the past 60 years. This country was quite leftward under Wilson/Callaghan, then quite right under Thatcher. Since Thatcher left it's largely been a race to the centre ground, which is where UK politics currently is. Truss tried a lurch back to the Thatcherite right, but was repelled by her own MPs. And, socially, so much progress has been made in the last 60 years, with regards to women's equality and equality for LGBT people.

6) But how are the Tories right-wing? What is your definition of right-wing, and how do the Tories match it?

Agree the Tories are failures. It's also far too much of a broad brush to classify the last 44 years as the same economics.

[super_realist]

Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch

There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is not the case, but I don't expect you to research it, or, if you do, I don't expect you to believe it.

Like what, I was expecting you to infer that it's a soft touch in comparison to other countries. 
Make it to Britain and there's a pretty good chance you'll be allowed to stay. Whatever outlandish claim you make is highly likely to be believed. Please note how few people are actually refused entry or deported.

[super_realist]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

Bit like your "asylum seekers" Mac, always young  men "escaping the most horrific situations in their home countries" only to leave their womenfolk and families behind to "suffer"

Always?  No women, children or old men in the asylum system then?  None?  

The vast majority of those making it over the channel are young men.

[JuliusHMarx]

Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch

There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is not the case, but I don't expect you to research it, or, if you do, I don't expect you to believe it.

Like what, I was expecting you to infer that it's a soft touch in comparison to other countries. 
Make it to Britain and there's a pretty good chance you'll be allowed to stay. Whatever outlandish claim you make is highly likely to be believed. Please note how few people are actually refused entry or deported.

You said it is a favoured destination because it is a soft touch. There is considerable research that shows that is not why Britain is chosen as a destination.

[superflyweight]

It's rather like all those Guardian readers taking in Ukrainians , often quite disappointed to find out where their beliefs and politics actually lie.

I know a few people who have taken in Ukrainians and the Ukrainians they have taken in do puzzle me. They all just seem to be middle class types that maybe correctly didn't fancy living in a war zone, but I can't help but think there is something cowardly about them being here. Just leave those without the means to uproot and come live with a "Guardian reader" to suffer.

Bit like your "asylum seekers" Mac, always young  men "escaping the most horrific situations in their home countries" only to leave their womenfolk and families behind to "suffer"

Always?  No women, children or old men in the asylum system then?  None?  

The vast majority of those making it over the channel are young men.

So not "always"?

[super_realist]

Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch

There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is not the case, but I don't expect you to research it, or, if you do, I don't expect you to believe it.

Like what, I was expecting you to infer that it's a soft touch in comparison to other countries. 
Make it to Britain and there's a pretty good chance you'll be allowed to stay. Whatever outlandish claim you make is highly likely to be believed. Please note how few people are actually refused entry or deported.

You said it is a favoured destination because it is a soft touch. There is considerable research that shows that is not why Britain is chosen as a destination.

You can keep claiming that if you like but unless you actually provide some evidence that is the case, why would I believe you?
What other reasons would they come to UK? UK spends 10x as much as France per illegal migrant and puts them up in superior accommodation compared to tents.
France accepts 25% of asylum claims, UK accepts 70%

In what ways isn't Britain a soft touch? It's hardly a difficult place to obtain asylum as the figures clearly show. Standards set for meeting asylum are LOWER.

Also almost no ideas to reduce immigration can ever be enacted because lefty loony lawyers immediately jump onto "human rights" to stop them being being approved.

[JuliusHMarx]

I don't see the point in providing evidence because evidence won't change your mind. Google searches such as 'why do refugees choose the UK ' or 'do asylum seekers think the UK is a soft touch' give a number of studies.

[superflyweight]

Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch

There is considerable evidence to indicate that this is not the case, but I don't expect you to research it, or, if you do, I don't expect you to believe it.

Like what, I was expecting you to infer that it's a soft touch in comparison to other countries. 
Make it to Britain and there's a pretty good chance you'll be allowed to stay. Whatever outlandish claim you make is highly likely to be believed. Please note how few people are actually refused entry or deported.

You said it is a favoured destination because it is a soft touch. There is considerable research that shows that is not why Britain is chosen as a destination.

You can keep claiming that if you like but unless you actually provide some evidence that is the case, why would I believe you?
What other reasons would they come to UK? UK spends 10x as much as France per illegal migrant and puts them up in superior accommodation compared to tents.
France accepts 25% of asylum claims, UK accepts 70%

In what ways isn't Britain a soft touch? It's hardly a difficult place to obtain asylum as the figures clearly show. Standards set for meeting asylum are LOWER.

Also almost no ideas to reduce immigration can ever be enacted because lefty loony lawyers immediately jump onto "human rights" to stop them being being approved.

You're one angry w*nk away from using the phrase "enemies of the people".

[super_realist]

Not at all. Still waiting on these excellent reasons for people coming to the UK other than it's a soft and almost guaranteed option. Are you going to claim like Beninho did that it's because they support English football teams?

[super_realist]

I don't see the point in providing evidence because evidence won't change your mind. Google searches such as 'why do refugees choose the UK ' or 'do asylum seekers think the UK is a soft touch' give a number of studies.

I could google "are there aliens" and get an affirmative answer. Doesn't mean they are true.

"Studies" = left wing opinion more like.

[superflyweight]

Not at all. Still waiting on these excellent reasons for people coming to the UK other than it's a soft and almost guaranteed option. Are you going to claim like Beninho did that it's because they support English football teams?

Why not try reading the reports and then come back and state that you, the world's leading authority on... (checks notes) everything, have concluded that there's no good reason for anyone come to Britain other than the fact that every asylum seeker get a free PS5, a well-paid job with guaranteed final salary pension, a lovely 4 bedroom detached house in Surrey and a holiday home in the Cotswolds.

[JuliusHMarx]

I don't see the point in providing evidence because evidence won't change your mind. Google searches such as 'why do refugees choose the UK ' or 'do asylum seekers think the UK is a soft touch' give a number of studies.

I could google "are there aliens" and get an affirmative answer. Doesn't mean they are true.

"Studies" = left wing opinion more like.

Thank you for proving my point.

[JuliusHMarx]

Not at all. Still waiting on these excellent reasons for people coming to the UK other than it's a soft and almost guaranteed option. Are you going to claim like Beninho did that it's because they support English football teams?

Why not try reading the reports and then come back and state that you, the world's leading authority on... (checks notes) everything, have concluded that there's no good reason for anyone come to Britain other than the fact that every asylum seeker get a free PS5, a well-paid job with guaranteed final salary pension, a lovely 4 bedroom detached house in Surrey and a holiday home in the Cotswolds.    

True, the lesser super doesn't read reports by so-called experts who have done so-called research. He already knows everything and is an expert in every field. Nothing left to learn.

[super_realist]

Not at all. Still waiting on these excellent reasons for people coming to the UK other than it's a soft and almost guaranteed option. Are you going to claim like Beninho did that it's because they support English football teams?

Why not try reading the reports and then come back and state that you, the world's leading authority on... (checks notes) everything, have concluded that there's no good reason for anyone come to Britain other than the fact that every asylum seeker get a free PS5, a well-paid job with guaranteed final salary pension, a lovely 4 bedroom detached house in Surrey and a holiday home in the Cotswolds.    

True, the lesser super doesn't read reports by so-called experts who have done so-called research. He already knows everything and is an expert in every field. Nothing left to learn.

Compete nonsense. Actually provide evidence don't just say studies exist. 
Show me who did the studies, who it was for, what questions were asked, how the questions were posed, who funded tje study etc. 
Ask any channel migrant why they choose Britain, they're hardly likely to say "because we are pushovers"
By the way, I'm ONLY talking about channel migrants, not the 600,000 legal migrants who came here last year by legitimate means.

[JuliusHMarx]

Genuinely can't be @rsed because you're not worth any more effort. People like you exist - I accept that. Not going to spend a lot of time trying to do much about that.

[JAS]

1) How would Corbyn have been stopped by the establishment? Who are the establishment and what, specifically, would they have prevented him from doing?

You absolutely know what I'm saying b ut I'll indulge you anyway. Large corporations, particularly in finance would have coalesced with right wing media to trash and thwart any movement toward correcting wealth inequality. "Not good for investment blah blah blah"

2) Corbyn threw out his principles at the first sign of pressure, whether it was not singing the national anthem, or suddenly supporting the EU. Agree that party membership growth was irrelevant; Labour's biggest defeat since the war was relevant. Disagree that Corbyn had many right ideas. It was the same reheated failures of the 70s.

Singing the national anthem is throwing away your principles under pressure?? FFS Duty have a word with yourself, that's EXACTLY the kind of nonsense the establishment would have fed us as well, I'm astounded you never mentioned the quality of raincoat he wore to the cenotaph as well

With regard to same reheated failures of the 70s?? I don't see them in that context at all, the world is an entirely different place now

3) And we both know I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Johnson threw wholesale support behind Ukraine in their fight against Russia, and Zelenskyy/the Ukrainians have been very grateful because of it.

Clearly nobody right of centre likes to mention Lebedev do they?? "I'll give you a seat in the HoL if your paper is friendly and receptive to my policies" or more likely "My newspaper can be friendly and supportive, what can you do for me in return"

Would Corbyn have done the same had he been PM? I very much doubt it, considering he's given TV interviews on channels that are pro-Putin since the conflict began, and signed an open letter that didn't endorse the nature or conduct of the Russian *and* Ukrainian regimes. Corbyn's pro-Russia past is well known, so certainly not projection.

Really? Pro Putin Russia? Don't you think you're conflating things together there to try and (unsuccessfully) make a point? Why would a man who clearly believes in peace and the fair distribution of power wealth and opportunity espouse the virtues of a warmongering kleptocratic plutocracy?? Doesn't make sense, although the right wing media certainly have a good go at convincing that it does.

You can't doubt his anti war/search for peace credentials however we agree that he was lacking in leadership skill, even I would concede he would have had zero chance of having successful peace talks with Putin but most certainly not because he was Putins mate.

4) If you consider the Tories right-wing, you have to be pretty far to the left.

Polarised binary thinking at it's best :-p

5) Selfish centre-right country that will never change in our lifetimes?

So, selfish...how, exactly? If you mean internationally, the UK gives over £10billion a year in foreign aid, and, as previously noted, has given wholesale support to the Ukrainians. If you mean inwardly, I would also have to disagree, as we're a very charitable nation.

I'm talking about the voting public and I credited you with knowing that was where I was coming from with that comment.

And the notion of being centre-right certainly has changed, and a lot has changed over the past 60 years. This country was quite leftward under Wilson/Callaghan, then quite right under Thatcher. Since Thatcher left it's largely been a race to the centre ground, which is where UK politics currently is. Truss tried a lurch back to the Thatcherite right, but was repelled by her own MPs. And, socially, so much progress has been made in the last 60 years, with regards to women's equality and equality for LGBT people.

Truss is not a lone voice though is she? She won the leadership based on the wider membership remember. The parliamentary party only binned her because many of them feared for their seats. If they lose the next election I would almost be tempted to bet the house on them attempting a further lurch to the right

6) But how are the Tories right-wing? What is your definition of right-wing, and how do the Tories match it?

Dog whistling barely concealed racism? Tax cuts for the rich that the poor have to pay for? defunding essential state services? Desired adherence to free market dogma when it suits them. Austerity was a choice, leaving the utility markets alone while utility companies tripled their prices to consumers and tripled their profits (yes they eventually threw some crumbs to beleaguered consumers).
French and German utility bills never tripled (and both are somewhat more reliant on Russian gas than we are), they never left their consumers at the mercy of the market, they actively managed the situation.

Agree the Tories are failures. It's also far too much of a broad brush to classify the last 44 years as the same economics.

It is broad brush, of course it is, just the same as it is broad brush to say the post war consensus Keynesian pursuit of low unemployment was from the end of ww2 through to the end of the 70s. There were nuances within that period but in broad brush terms the pursuit of low unemployment was the major macro economic objective. Neoliberals will tell you that turned out to be flawed thinking because ultra low unemployment fuels inflation (and to an extent that is a valid assertion). In neoliberalism it's the pursuit of low inflation that is the primary macro-economic objective (which is a sensible objective). The primary driver however is the flawed assertion of trickledown economics "Make the rich richer and wealth will trickle-down to everyone"...I think after 44 years we can safely say that part of the theory is complete and utter Love sacks. We need a new reset, a philosophy that facilitates low unemployment, low inflation and prosperity for the majority not just the top 1% who know how and have the power to game the system in their favour. The pursuit of low inflation is the thing to do but there HAS to be a better thought out approach than simply leaving it to a central Bank to raise interest rates

[navyblueshorts]

Why would I need to keep quiet? Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch and accepts the claims of "asylum" to a significantly higher percentage of so called asylum seekers than any other European Country. That's not to say it takes more, rather that it rejects far  fewer claims. 
It also spends significantly more per person than any other European country by accomodating them in hotels and private accomodation rather than France housing them rightly in tents

If I was an economic migrant I'd do the same, but isn't it funny how virtually all of these "asylum seekers" are young men who hardly look very distraught leaving behind their families in such awful and insufferable conditions back home?

People claiming "asylum" aren't even permitted to work, they're just sitting on their arses in nice hotels at your expense, so hardly sending money back home.

Asylum seekers aren't economic migrants. Just thought I'd clarify that for you .

If a large % of asylum seekers are ultimately allowed to stay, could that be, just maybe, because when their cases are examined in the light of international law and UK obligations under such, they have a clear case that they can stay? In the meantime, they have to be housed somewhere. You don't have to like the outcome, but it's not because we're "soft".

[McLaren]

Navy that last point will never sink in for people like Super. It requires seeing a level of humanity in people seeking asylum that he just isn't capable of.

[McLaren]

Video depiction of Supers inner monologue.

https://twitter.com/patricej36/status/1707144062451564752

[Duty281]

1) How would Corbyn have been stopped by the establishment? Who are the establishment and what, specifically, would they have prevented him from doing?

You absolutely know what I'm saying b ut I'll indulge you anyway. Large corporations, particularly in finance would have coalesced with right wing media to trash and thwart any movement toward correcting wealth inequality. "Not good for investment blah blah blah"

2) Corbyn threw out his principles at the first sign of pressure, whether it was not singing the national anthem, or suddenly supporting the EU. Agree that party membership growth was irrelevant; Labour's biggest defeat since the war was relevant. Disagree that Corbyn had many right ideas. It was the same reheated failures of the 70s.

Singing the national anthem is throwing away your principles under pressure?? FFS Duty have a word with yourself, that's EXACTLY the kind of nonsense the establishment would have fed us as well, I'm astounded you never mentioned the quality of raincoat he wore to the cenotaph as well

With regard to same reheated failures of the 70s?? I don't see them in that context at all, the world is an entirely different place now

3) And we both know I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Johnson threw wholesale support behind Ukraine in their fight against Russia, and Zelenskyy/the Ukrainians have been very grateful because of it.

Clearly nobody right of centre likes to mention Lebedev do they?? "I'll give you a seat in the HoL if your paper is friendly and receptive to my policies" or more likely "My newspaper can be friendly and supportive, what can you do for me in return"

Would Corbyn have done the same had he been PM? I very much doubt it, considering he's given TV interviews on channels that are pro-Putin since the conflict began, and signed an open letter that didn't endorse the nature or conduct of the Russian *and* Ukrainian regimes. Corbyn's pro-Russia past is well known, so certainly not projection.

Really? Pro Putin Russia? Don't you think you're conflating things together there to try and (unsuccessfully) make a point? Why would a man who clearly believes in peace and the fair distribution of power wealth and opportunity espouse the virtues of a warmongering kleptocratic plutocracy?? Doesn't make sense, although the right wing media certainly have a good go at convincing that it does.

You can't doubt his anti war/search for peace credentials however we agree that he was lacking in leadership skill, even I would concede he would have had zero chance of having successful peace talks with Putin but most certainly not because he was Putins mate.

4) If you consider the Tories right-wing, you have to be pretty far to the left.

Polarised binary thinking at it's best :-p

5) Selfish centre-right country that will never change in our lifetimes?

So, selfish...how, exactly? If you mean internationally, the UK gives over £10billion a year in foreign aid, and, as previously noted, has given wholesale support to the Ukrainians. If you mean inwardly, I would also have to disagree, as we're a very charitable nation.

I'm talking about the voting public and I credited you with knowing that was where I was coming from with that comment.

And the notion of being centre-right certainly has changed, and a lot has changed over the past 60 years. This country was quite leftward under Wilson/Callaghan, then quite right under Thatcher. Since Thatcher left it's largely been a race to the centre ground, which is where UK politics currently is. Truss tried a lurch back to the Thatcherite right, but was repelled by her own MPs. And, socially, so much progress has been made in the last 60 years, with regards to women's equality and equality for LGBT people.

Truss is not a lone voice though is she? She won the leadership based on the wider membership remember. The parliamentary party only binned her because many of them feared for their seats. If they lose the next election I would almost be tempted to bet the house on them attempting a further lurch to the right

6) But how are the Tories right-wing? What is your definition of right-wing, and how do the Tories match it?

Dog whistling barely concealed racism? Tax cuts for the rich that the poor have to pay for? defunding essential state services? Desired adherence to free market dogma when it suits them. Austerity was a choice, leaving the utility markets alone while utility companies tripled their prices to consumers and tripled their profits (yes they eventually threw some crumbs to beleaguered consumers).
French and German utility bills never tripled (and both are somewhat more reliant on Russian gas than we are), they never left their consumers at the mercy of the market, they actively managed the situation.

Agree the Tories are failures. It's also far too much of a broad brush to classify the last 44 years as the same economics.

It is broad brush, of course it is, just the same as it is broad brush to say the post war consensus Keynesian pursuit of low unemployment was from the end of ww2 through to the end of the 70s. There were nuances within that period but in broad brush terms the pursuit of low unemployment was the major macro economic objective. Neoliberals will tell you that turned out to be flawed thinking because ultra low unemployment fuels inflation (and to an extent that is a valid assertion). In neoliberalism it's the pursuit of low inflation that is the primary macro-economic objective (which is a sensible objective). The primary driver however is the flawed assertion of trickledown economics "Make the rich richer and wealth will trickle-down to everyone"...I think after 44 years we can safely say that part of the theory is complete and utter Love sacks. We need a new reset, a philosophy that facilitates low unemployment, low inflation and prosperity for the majority not just the top 1% who know how and have the power to game the system in their favour. The pursuit of low inflation is the thing to do but there HAS to be a better thought out approach than simply leaving it to a central Bank to raise interest rates

1) An interesting conspiracy.

2) What do you mean, have a word with myself? Corbyn was at some event just after he became Labour leader, the national anthem was played, Corbyn didn't sing it. Fair enough, I thought. There was some manufactured tabloid outrage, but I thought Corbyn would stand up to this due to his principles as a Republican. Next event, oh Corbyn sings the national anthem. Bit of pressure and he breaks.

3a) I mean that's probably right. Dodgy appointments to the House of Lords, though many think of it as a modern trend, have been going on since at least the premiership of Lloyd George, and almost certainly before then. But my original point was concerned with the conflict.

3b) I said Corbyn had given interviews on TV channels that were pro-Putin since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I'm pointing out that Corbyn is, at least, friendly to Russia, and this is exhibited through his long history of appearances on pro-Russian media, and coolness towards Ukraine since the conflict began. I'm then wondering how all this would have worked had Corbyn been PM during this time.

Corbyn has the same idea of peace in the way that a child does. 'If we all just put down our guns we can all get along nicely', is a broad summary of Corbyn's outlook on peace and being anti-war, seemingly not realising there's scum out there like Putin who don't respond to this.

4) Doubtful. While I'm not massively keen on wings, the further left a person is then the further right they think the Tories are.

5a) Why are the voting public selfish? In what regard? Is it because most of them didn't vote for Corbyn's racist Labour Party in 2017 and 2019, and you think that if they don't vote for something (falsely) advertised as 'for the many, not the jfew', then they're selfish?

5b) This is broadly inaccurate. Truss won the leadership from the membership because they considered her to be the least worst option. The membership only had a choice between Sunak and Truss. If the membership had a choice between Mordaunt and Sunak, they would have picked Mordaunt, and Mordaunt is generally considered to be on the left of the Tory Party.

I think, if I remember correctly, Badenoch was the most popular choice of Tory members at the time, with Braverman, Truss and Mordaunt all scrapping around 2/3/4th most popular.

While I'd likely agree that the broad aspect of Tory membership is to the right, they have no actual power, and most of the parliamentary party is in that centre ground, as evidenced from the ballot votes in the 2022 leadership election (the first one). This ties into the parliamentary party never liking Truss from the off. Two-thirds of MPs voted for either Sunak or Mordaunt, but Truss was forced upon them by the membership.

Keen not to repeat the mistake of having a choice forced upon them, the next leadership election was decided with no members vote. And will a members vote ever happen again, I wonder?

Of those in the parliamentary party who fear losing their seats, they're just not standing at the next election. Sunak is 20% down and they don't seem keen to get rid of him.

I wouldn't like to predict where they'll go after Sunak. It will largely depend on what MPs they have left after the next election. There might be a greater % of right-leaning to right MPs after the next GE, which could lead to a rightward lurch. But they also may think that they didn't recover from their last loss of governance in 1997 by going to the right (that caused them to lose in 2001 and 2005), but by invading the centre (which just about got them over in 2010).

6) What racism? And why do you consider racism to be right-wing? Are Diane Abbott, Rupa Huq, Naz Shah, all racists that have been/still are in the Labour Party, right-wing?

I thought the Tory Party threw out Truss, who tried to implement tax cuts for the rich? Wouldn't they have loved her ideas? Defunding state services is not an idea limited to the right.

With regards to energy bills, the French get most of their power from home-grown nuclear, the Germans from their own coal. Our Tory government, in its infinite stupidity, shut down our coal production with the idea that wind energy would offset it (not a very right wing idea, I have to add), and so we're even more reliant on imported gas than the French and Germans because of that reason.

7) Yes low unemployment and low inflation would be lovely, I think we can all agree. Unfortunately, the current Tories don't give a toss about inflation, as they threw around hundreds of billions during Covid while, indeed, the top 1% got much richer.

I agree we need a reset. We need an end to the failed Tory/Lab binary, with the occasional dollop of the minor parties. I'd ideally like a system where political parties were abolished, but for now I'd settle for PR as a first step.

I do fear this country, and Western Europe as a whole, is on a very dark path, however, and I'm not sure it's going to end well.

[Duty281]

Video depiction of Supers inner monologue.

Spoiler:

We'll have to confront our cultural differences one day. Will it be a peaceful confrontation? Doubtful.

[JuliusHMarx]

While I'm not massively keen on wings...

Me neither, but some of McCartney's solo stuff is even worse.

[Duty281]

While I'm not massively keen on wings...

Me neither, but some of McCartney's solo stuff is even worse.

This is very serious stuff, Julius. Please don't be flippant.

I was clearly talking about how Red Bull gives you wings.

[super_realist]

Video depiction of Supers inner monologue.

Spoiler:

I'm just not in favour of anyone coming to Britain who fancies it Mac. 
I don't mind those who are in a country legally or who we genuinely can support due to proper asylum conditions. 
Im in favour of those who bring skills and experience, I'm simply not  in  favour of those who get themselves here by illegal means, who are taking over hotels, pushing those employed there put of work, who falsely claim asylum and who are here for no other reason that they simply don't fancy life in their own country anymore and who have to be supported at great expense in the UK. 
I'm not sure why you want open borders or can have a problem with my position. 

Incidentally, just the cost of accomodating these illegal channel migrants is enough to give ALL clinical staff in the NHS an £8000 per annum pay rise. That basket case of a useless health system could be reformed properly if you stopped this migration.

[super_realist]

Why would I need to keep quiet? Britain is a favoured destination because it's a soft touch and accepts the claims of "asylum" to a significantly higher percentage of so called asylum seekers than any other European Country. That's not to say it takes more, rather that it rejects far  fewer claims. 
It also spends significantly more per person than any other European country by accomodating them in hotels and private accomodation rather than France housing them rightly in tents

If I was an economic migrant I'd do the same, but isn't it funny how virtually all of these "asylum seekers" are young men who hardly look very distraught leaving behind their families in such awful and insufferable conditions back home?

People claiming "asylum" aren't even permitted to work, they're just sitting on their arses in nice hotels at your expense, so hardly sending money back home.

Asylum seekers aren't economic migrants. Just thought I'd clarify that for you .

If a large % of asylum seekers are ultimately allowed to stay, could that be, just maybe, because when their cases are examined in the light of international law and UK obligations under such, they have a clear case that they can stay? In the meantime, they have to be housed somewhere. You don't have to like the outcome, but it's not because we're "soft".

Those crossing the channel largely aren't asylum seekers, they are pretending to be, told to throw their papers away, told to tell the authorities they're persecuted for being Christian or gay when they are neither.  Border staff are told not to question their claims.
If they were genuine they wouldn't have 5k to give to traffickers or if they did they'd be holding on to it to live on. 

UK standards for granting asylum are LOWER than in any other European country so their claims are more likely to be accepted. 25% of asylum claims are granted in France, it's 70% in UK, so where do you think fake claims of migrants posing as Asylum seekers are going to pick?
We have people from India, Bangladesh, Albania, Africa on these boats, countries that are simply not at risk. 
You telling me they are all genuine? I've got some swamp land in New Jersey to sell you. 
These people aren't in danger, they aren't fleeing anything, they are already in a safe country called France.

As for them being housed, why don't we house them like France in tents, army barracks etc? If life is "so bad for them" in their own countries then a tented village should be paradise. 
Why are we putting them in 4 star hotels, and before you claim there aren't I had a four star hotel at the bottom of my street which was used exactly for that. All staff laid off and hotel used for three years for this purpose. On that factor of accomodation alone, the UK is a soft touch and they must be laughing into their sleeves when human rights lawyers stop things like the Bibby Stockholm (which is a stupid idea to be fair, but not an inhumane one)

To me the solution seems obvious and sensible and that is processing centres in France as well as people destroying boats in France

[Duty281]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

The government is on course to oversee the biggest tax-raising Parliament since records began, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis. The IFS forecasts taxes will amount to about 37% of national income by the next general election, due in 2024.

That would be a level not seen since 1948, just after World War Two.

Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels, the IFS says. Some Tory MPs are putting pressure on Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to reduce taxes in the government's autumn statement next month.

Mr Hunt however said last week that tax cuts were "virtually impossible" at present.

The IFS says the government is currently raising more in tax revenue, as a percentage of national income, than at any time since the 1940s.

In recent years, the government has announced a series of tax-raising measures, including an increase in corporation tax from 19% to 25%, and the levy on profits made by energy companies.

The IFS said the data on tax revenues only go back to 1948. Only during and in the immediate aftermath of the two world wars have government revenues - not just those from taxes - grown by as much in this Parliament in the 123 years since 1900, the IFS says.

Its director, Paul Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's Today's programme: "Over this parliament, it looks like taxes will rise by about 4% of national income, that's round about £100bn."

Those right-wing Tories and their tax cuts.

[JAS]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

The government is on course to oversee the biggest tax-raising Parliament since records began, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis. The IFS forecasts taxes will amount to about 37% of national income by the next general election, due in 2024.

That would be a level not seen since 1948, just after World War Two.

Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels, the IFS says. Some Tory MPs are putting pressure on Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to reduce taxes in the government's autumn statement next month.

Mr Hunt however said last week that tax cuts were "virtually impossible" at present.

The IFS says the government is currently raising more in tax revenue, as a percentage of national income, than at any time since the 1940s.

In recent years, the government has announced a series of tax-raising measures, including an increase in corporation tax from 19% to 25%, and the levy on profits made by energy companies.

The IFS said the data on tax revenues only go back to 1948. Only during and in the immediate aftermath of the two world wars have government revenues - not just those from taxes - grown by as much in this Parliament in the 123 years since 1900, the IFS says.

Its director, Paul Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's Today's programme: "Over this parliament, it looks like taxes will rise by about 4% of national income, that's round about £100bn."

Those right-wing Tories and their tax cuts.

Got to be honest that baffles me, well to a point insofar as when I first started working the basic rate of Tax was 33%. Although obviously we are in a very different world now and basic rate income tax is just one slice of the revenue in cake.

In terms of the revenue out cake, how much is going out to pay for poor policy decisions? e.g. paying 2-3 times as much for agency staff to cover for staff shortages caused by Poopie wages and strikes caused by Poopie wages and said staff shortages - vicious circle draining the public purse?. Money bled away to shore up institutions after trying to borrow from the markets to fund tax cuts for the rich? Paying out billions Baroness Mone for crap PPE, paying out billions for a test & trace system that never worked properly at scale. Quite frankly I'd be seizing Mone's new yacht and auctioning it off to replenish the public purse. There's way way too many greedy snakes raping the public purse and the only way to replenish it is through taxation and/or economic growth and this lot are not getting growth are they? So the only option is???

[JAS]

Meanwhile, Rangers descending into being a Chelsea tribute act in terms of managerial sackings. From what I'm hearing he had to go because of how toxic the support had become.

Disappointing, if you give a guy a job, he has a decent start and you give him money to rebuild a squad, you HAVE to give him time to bed in a major squad overhaul. Especially as they have a pretty extensive injury list...again!! (which severely hampered GvB this time last year).Succumbing to supporter pressure after a clutch of admittedly painful defeats is a retrograde step. It actually feeds right into Supers narrative about Old Firm fans unrealistic expectations of their team.

Anyway, it's done and as far as I can see there's no-one that would be an appropriate fit that would take it. Steven Davis is a bit of a punt as interim but we'll see. A bit of black humour that even I found amusing. "The medics & Physio's need punted as well, even the new manager is injured"

[McLaren]

Jas

The old firm are irrelevant to football now. Just let it go.

[JAS]

Jas

The old firm are irrelevant to football now. Just let it go.

In broad brush terms you could say football is irrelevant, indeed all sport if irrelevant. In what context are you trying to make your point?

[McLaren]

In the context of football the old firm are irrelevant.

No interest in them outside Scotland.

[McLaren]

https://twitter.com/robert1lefty/status/1708542752110117079?t=uywkVZt1Iz-vqynSYJkhMg&s=19

Why is he so parochial?

Also singing proclaimers on the bus

[JAS]

https://twitter.com/robert1lefty/status/1708542752110117079?t=uywkVZt1Iz-vqynSYJkhMg&s=19

Why is he so parochial?

Also singing proclaimers on the bus

Did the rest join in?? Very jolly if they did...awkward tumbleweed if they didn't

[McLaren]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

[Duty281]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

The government is on course to oversee the biggest tax-raising Parliament since records began, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis. The IFS forecasts taxes will amount to about 37% of national income by the next general election, due in 2024.

That would be a level not seen since 1948, just after World War Two.

Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels, the IFS says. Some Tory MPs are putting pressure on Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to reduce taxes in the government's autumn statement next month.

Mr Hunt however said last week that tax cuts were "virtually impossible" at present.

The IFS says the government is currently raising more in tax revenue, as a percentage of national income, than at any time since the 1940s.

In recent years, the government has announced a series of tax-raising measures, including an increase in corporation tax from 19% to 25%, and the levy on profits made by energy companies.

The IFS said the data on tax revenues only go back to 1948. Only during and in the immediate aftermath of the two world wars have government revenues - not just those from taxes - grown by as much in this Parliament in the 123 years since 1900, the IFS says.

Its director, Paul Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's Today's programme: "Over this parliament, it looks like taxes will rise by about 4% of national income, that's round about £100bn."

Those right-wing Tories and their tax cuts.

Got to be honest that baffles me, well to a point insofar as when I first started working the basic rate of Tax was 33%. Although obviously we are in a very different world now and basic rate income tax is just one slice of the revenue in cake.

In terms of the revenue out cake, how much is going out to pay for poor policy decisions? e.g. paying 2-3 times as much for agency staff to cover for staff shortages caused by Poopie wages and strikes caused by Poopie wages and said staff shortages - vicious circle draining the public purse?. Money bled away to shore up institutions after trying to borrow from the markets to fund tax cuts for the rich? Paying out billions  Baroness Mone for crap PPE, paying out billions for a test & trace system that never worked properly at scale. Quite frankly I'd be seizing Mone's new yacht and auctioning it off to replenish the public purse. There's way way too many greedy snakes raping the public  purse and the only way to replenish it is through taxation and/or economic growth and this lot are not getting growth are they? So the only option is???

In terms of the revenue out cake, we're paying the £400bn bill for Covid through excessively high taxation which, in turn, chokes economic growth. That's the main part of it. Broadly, the Tories are chasing left-wing solutions for problems, after binning Truss' effort which would have equaled economic growth.

Oh well. I see Sunak is also likely to follow famous right-winger Jacinda Ardern in phasing out smoking, by increasing the legal smoking age year after year. Such stupidity.

[Duty281]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

[JuliusHMarx]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

[Duty281]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

[JuliusHMarx]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

[Duty281]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

The vast majority of people are good. A small minority are not. Society needs to protect the vast majority from the small minority.

We're broadly a civilised race, but certainly some places are more civil than others.

[JuliusHMarx]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

The vast majority of people are good. A small minority are not. Society needs to protect the vast majority from the small minority.

We're broadly a civilised race, but certainly some places are more civil than others.

We also need to protect people who hate endless quotes on 606.
Not having the death penalty is one example of being more civil.

[Duty281]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

The vast majority of people are good. A small minority are not. Society needs to protect the vast majority from the small minority.

We're broadly a civilised race, but certainly some places are more civil than others.

We also need to protect people who hate endless quotes on 606.
Not having the death penalty is one example of being more civil.

Damn those people.

[JuliusHMarx]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

The vast majority of people are good. A small minority are not. Society needs to protect the vast majority from the small minority.

We're broadly a civilised race, but certainly some places are more civil than others.

We also need to protect people who hate endless quotes on 606.
Not having the death penalty is one example of being more civil.

Damn those people.

Them, and their first world problems.

[JAS]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66945729

The government is on course to oversee the biggest tax-raising Parliament since records began, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis. The IFS forecasts taxes will amount to about 37% of national income by the next general election, due in 2024.

That would be a level not seen since 1948, just after World War Two.

Next year, the government will collect upwards of £100bn more in tax compared to pre-2019 levels, the IFS says. Some Tory MPs are putting pressure on Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to reduce taxes in the government's autumn statement next month.

Mr Hunt however said last week that tax cuts were "virtually impossible" at present.

The IFS says the government is currently raising more in tax revenue, as a percentage of national income, than at any time since the 1940s.

In recent years, the government has announced a series of tax-raising measures, including an increase in corporation tax from 19% to 25%, and the levy on profits made by energy companies.

The IFS said the data on tax revenues only go back to 1948. Only during and in the immediate aftermath of the two world wars have government revenues - not just those from taxes - grown by as much in this Parliament in the 123 years since 1900, the IFS says.

Its director, Paul Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's Today's programme: "Over this parliament, it looks like taxes will rise by about 4% of national income, that's round about £100bn."

Those right-wing Tories and their tax cuts.

Got to be honest that baffles me, well to a point insofar as when I first started working the basic rate of Tax was 33%. Although obviously we are in a very different world now and basic rate income tax is just one slice of the revenue in cake.

In terms of the revenue out cake, how much is going out to pay for poor policy decisions? e.g. paying 2-3 times as much for agency staff to cover for staff shortages caused by Poopie wages and strikes caused by Poopie wages and said staff shortages - vicious circle draining the public purse?. Money bled away to shore up institutions after trying to borrow from the markets to fund tax cuts for the rich? Paying out billions  Baroness Mone for crap PPE, paying out billions for a test & trace system that never worked properly at scale. Quite frankly I'd be seizing Mone's new yacht and auctioning it off to replenish the public purse. There's way way too many greedy snakes raping the public  purse and the only way to replenish it is through taxation and/or economic growth and this lot are not getting growth are they? So the only option is???

In terms of the revenue out cake, we're paying the £400bn bill for Covid through excessively high taxation which, in turn, chokes economic growth. That's the main part of it. Broadly, the Tories are chasing left-wing solutions for problems, after binning Truss' effort which would have equaled economic growth.

Oh well. I see Sunak is also likely to follow famous right-winger Jacinda Ardern in phasing out smoking, by increasing the legal smoking age year after year. Such stupidity.

We're in a weird place for sure, Tories trying to be Socialists (badly) but not being prepared to openly say so. Socialists preparing to run Capitalism slightly better than the incumbents (which will also end badly) and not being prepared to openly say so. How did we get here?? Where the hell has honesty and openness gone? what scared it away? and how do we get it back?

[Galted]

Experts call for Lucy Letby inquiry to cover statistical evidence used in trial

Royal Statistical Society suggests a better understanding of statistics could help NHS trusts act more quickly in similar cases

Pity she hasn't been hanged.

We don't hang people. We're a civilised nation (in that respect).

I know and it's a shame.

We're a lovely civilised nation that lets rapists roam free, keeps terrorists and child killers alive, and paroles anyone who's got a decent sob story to sell to some middle-class type. We've got judges who praise criminals, an underfunded police service that is terrified of doing anything for fear of being labelled with an ism or phobia, bubbling community tensions, and shoplifters who walk out with no fear of the consequences.

Then we wonder why the streets are awash with filth.

But at least we're civilised.

The human race has rapists, terrorists, child killers, poverty, intolerance, war, hatred, isms and phobias - we're not a civilised race.

The vast majority of people are good. A small minority are not. Society needs to protect the vast majority from the small minority.

We're broadly a civilised race, but certainly some places are more civil than others.

We also need to protect people who hate endless quotes on 606.
Not having the death penalty is one example of being more civil.

Damn those people.

Them, and their first world problems.

Do you two not realise that you are the problem‽

[Sponsored content]