Politics

[trophyshy 7074]

where have her enormous norks gone today?  talk about flip-flopping.  

[Craig 6682]

15 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Coffey cheering there looked like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man when he got angry. She's a human hob nob. 

 

[Monkeys Fist 42186]

5 minutes ago, trophyshy said:

where have her enormous norks gone today?  talk about flip-flopping.  

They’re all behind her, baying and cheering. 

[Rayvin 5188]

2 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

They’re all behind her, baying and cheering. 

 

Superb

[Renton 21428]

18 minutes ago, scoobos said:

I bet this has already been posted , but I've not seen it. 

It's a gem anyway:
 

One thing thats pissing me off at the moment (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) - are two statements coming hard and fast in the media : Both of which totally contradict my A level economics knowledge, of supply and demand and how prices are decided by the market.

Forgive the format, I know its not school

1. Energy companies cannot help the wholesale price and we cannot control it - they are not making excessive profits. 
 a. The way I understand this says they ARE - they charge a percentage mark up on the fuel they sell - so if a unit costs £1 and they put a 10% markup on it - they make 10p per unit - if a unit costs £4 and they put 10% margin on it they make 40p per unit - thus exploiting the consumer - who has no choice but to pay.
b. Electricity is sold at a price matching unit price - no matter the source. E.g "Gas prices going up, means electricity cost goes up" . How does that work for Nuclear, Renewable etc? They are just matching the cost - if they sold theirs cheaper , then they would put decrease demand on the gas electricity, thus forcing a reduction in price.

2. We cannot tax profits at a higher level , because it stifles investment. 

This has to be bullshit - Consumers pay tiered tax - low rate and higher rate , based on thresholds. Businesses are taxed on GROSS profits (profits that equal the revenue brought in from sales vs the cost of selling those goods ). Am I mistaken that investments are a Cost of goods sold? If I invest in  training courses because my employees need new skills next year - that is a cost of selling my service and therefore its a cost that reduces the profit so I'm taxed less.

So how does taxing people reduce investment? If anything it MAY convince them to invest more in order to avoid taxes and reap their money over a longer term. 

Thinking that oil and gas companies are going to seriously invest of their own accord into renewables is like thinking a tobacco / nicotine company is going to invest in not selling nicotine anymore.

Set me right someone please, its driving me fucking bonkers.
 

 

So point 1 I think you have to distinguish between energy producers (Shell, BP etc) and suppliers (Eon, Octopus etc). As far as I am aware, the latter are making no money at all currently because of the cap. Ofgem only regulate the latter. Which is why so many went out of business last year. Of course some companies are both and these are making huge net profits. That's as I understand it, happy to be corrected. 

 

Point 2, the investment argument is pure bullshit, ignore it like any other tory lie.  

[spongebob toonpants 3958]

I agree with @Rayvin to some extent. Truss believes what she is saying and actually answered honestly.

 

The problem for Truss is she is an idiot and has made herself a complete hostage to fortune. People are idiots, but this will help Labour in this instance because they can just hammer away excess profits every single time they are announced, and the ordinary man in the street will get the message

Edited September 7, 2022 by spongebob toonpants

[Renton 21428]

Just now, spongebob toonpants said:

I agree with @Rayvin to some extent. Truss believes what she is saying and actually answered honestly.

 

The problem for Truss is she is an idiot and has made herself a complete hostage to fortune. People are idiots, but this will help Labour in this instance because they can just hammer away excess profits every single time they are announced, and the ordinary in the street will get yhe message

 

How does she believe what she is saying? She was a lib dem, now is an a right wing loon. Just 6 years ago she supported remain. She has already changed her policies since the hustings last month. She has no fucking idealogy at all, is thick as fuck, and is the worst oral performer I have ever heard. I am 100% convinced she will not last a year. (Mind, I said similar about Johnson and he lasted longer than I thought he would, but he still went). 

[spongebob toonpants 3958]

In fact i think this might end up being the equivalent of the poll tax. Terminally toxic for the Tories

[spongebob toonpants 3958]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

How does she believe what she is saying? She was a lib dem, now is an a right wing loon. 

You're right actually, she is just saying what her paymasters are telling her to say.

She's even thicker than I thought

[Rayvin 5188]

1 minute ago, spongebob toonpants said:

I agree with @Rayvin to some extent. Truss believes what she is saying and actually answered honestly.

 

The problem for Truss is she is an idiot and has made herself a complete hostage to fortune. People are idiots, but this will help Labour in this instance because they can just hammer away excess profits every single time they are announced, and the ordinary in the street will get yhe message

 

Aside from the nature of the argument, I think there's a risk here in terms of strategy concerning truth. Starmer has set himself up to fight this battle in a Johnsonite playing field where truth is whatever you want it to be and you won't be harshly questioned for saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I doubt that it's an exaggeration to say that a lot of people will be genuinely tired of seeing this level of bullshit from politicians. On the left we acknowledge that Starmer has had to play this game because it's the tone that has been set by his adversary, even if some of us (you and I amongst them) were repelled by it. On the right, they saw it too - but they chose to tell themselves that "all politicians were the same" in order to justify their continued backing for Johnson.

 

If Truss comes in here and starts speaking her truth about the economy - and for all I think she flip flops on a great many things, her overall framework for economic management seems pretty consistent - it is possible that people start seeing her as an antidote to the bullshit of the last few years, and that she manages to portray herself as a serious politician who needs to make adult decisions. I guarantee that's what she's going for at the very least. And that distinction with Johnson - gained simply through openly committing to her principles, could permit her to get away with all manner of total idiocy while looking like she is simply doing what has to be done.

 

How it is received does depend on the average voter, but they've let us down a great many times before.

[Renton 21428]

 

8 minutes ago, spongebob toonpants said:

You're right actually, she is just saying what her paymasters are telling her to say.

She's even thicker than I thought

 

Aye, the term "Useful idiot" comes to mind, but she's probably not clever enough to be an idiot. 

 

Maybe she did answer more honestly than Johnson would have, showed her hand a bit more. But when your holding a 2 and a 7, you're best not showing it at all. Johnson knew this. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Renton

[Renton 21428]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Aside from the nature of the argument, I think there's a risk here in terms of strategy concerning truth. Starmer has set himself up to fight this battle in a Johnsonite playing field where truth is whatever you want it to be and you won't be harshly questioned for saying one thing today and another thing tomorrow. I doubt that it's an exaggeration to say that a lot of people will be genuinely tired of seeing this level of bullshit from politicians. On the left we acknowledge that Starmer has had to play this game because it's the tone that has been set by his adversary, even if some of us (you and I amongst them) were repelled by it. On the right, they saw it too - but they chose to tell themselves that "all politicians were the same" in order to justify their continued backing for Johnson.

 

If Truss comes in here and starts speaking her truth about the economy - and for all I think she flip flops on a great many things, her overall framework for economic management seems pretty consistent - it is possible that people start seeing her as an antidote to the bullshit of the last few years, and that she manages to portray herself as a serious politician who needs to make adult decisions. I guarantee that's what she's going for at the very least. And that distinction with Johnson - gained simply through openly committing to her principles, could permit her to get away with all manner of total idiocy while looking like she is simply doing what has to be done.

 

How it is received does depend on the average voter, but they've let us down a great many times before.

 

She ruled out windfall taxes in almost her first repsonse. Honestly man, that was a major mistake. She's lost already. 

[Gemmill 44554]

Starmer will be banking on her sticking to her "truth" man. @RayvinI think you're massively overestimating the ability of the average voter to be swayed by economic ideology when that ideology is "yes, these energy companies are entitled to £170bn in excess profits, and we'll all just have to pay for it another way." 

 

You're looking at Truss and seeing a monster under the bed that Labour need to worry about. She's nothing of the sort. She's a fucking div with a terrible message for voters outside of a very thin sliver of the electorate. 

[Rayvin 5188]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

She ruled out windfall taxes in almost her first repsonse. Honestly man, that was a major mistake. She's lost already. 

 

I have said it before and I'll say it again - I have been on this forum since 2012 and every fucking year we predict the imminent demise of the Tories, and every fucking year they're still in power.

 

I agree that we have to be getting close to the end of what the public will tolerate now, genuinely, but we should take her very fucking seriously so that there is absolutely no possibility that this gets fucked up. There should still be an electoral pact even if Labour gets to an 80% poll lead. We cannot afford to write her off and call this an inevitability.

[Rayvin 5188]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

Starmer will be banking on her sticking to her "truth" man. @RayvinI think you're massively overestimating the ability of the average voter to be swayed by economic ideology when that ideology is "yes, these energy companies are entitled to £170bn in excess profits, and we'll all just have to pay for it another way." 

 

You're looking at Truss and seeing a monster under the bed that Labour need to worry about. She's nothing of the sort. She's a fucking div with a terrible message for voters outside of a very thin sliver of the electorate. 

 

Maybe I am - the fact that what she said was well received with me (argument aside) suggests that this could just be my own preference for truth and principles in political discussion trumping other considerations.

 

I very much hope you're right but I am worried nonetheless.

[Craig 6682]

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

She ruled out windfall taxes in almost her first repsonse. Honestly man, that was a major mistake. She's lost already. 

 

100% agree. That's a question she should have absolutely swerved. It was a clever ploy to put it to her when it was - how she answered the first few questions would set out the narrative of her style which would stick. She clearly didn't want to portray herself as indecisive and conversely has shot herself massively in the foot.

[Renton 21428]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I have said it before and I'll say it again - I have been on this forum since 2012 and every fucking year we predict the imminent demise of the Tories, and every fucking year they're still in power.

 

I agree that we have to be getting close to the end of what the public will tolerate now, genuinely, but we should take her very fucking seriously so that there is absolutely no possibility that this gets fucked up. There should still be an electoral pact even if Labour gets to an 80% poll lead. We cannot afford to write her off and call this an inevitability.

 

 After GE 2019 the tories gained a huge majority (Brexit, Corbyn) with a 5 year mandate, of course they are still in power. But  Johnson has already gone. The tories are massively behind in the polls, with the new leader making the polling even worse. Her cabinet is frankly just a joke, nobody can take them seriously. Economically we are heading for oblivion which will impact heavily on nearly all the electorate, so I can't see a scenario that polling will imminently improve, especially with her ruling out windfall taxes. I mean what the fuck more do you want to have happened in this time frame? It's like Newcastle are 5-0 up with 10 minutes to go and you are complaining they haven't won the game yet. 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Renton

[Craig 6682]

The Tories refuse to acknowledge it but their huge majority was primarily on the mandate to get Brexit over the line. That mandate has been delivered and since then the party has been embroiled in sleeze, lies and deceit. 

Their huge majority has already gone, it's just a matter of waiting for the next GE which they will drag out as long as they possibly can.

[Renton 21428]

Just now, Craig said:

The Tories refuse to acknowledge it but their huge majority was primarily on the mandate to get Brexit over the line. That mandate has been delivered and since then the party has been embroiled in sleeze, lies and deceit. 

Their huge majority has already gone, it's just a matter of waiting for the next GE which they will drag out as long as they possibly can.

 

Yep, also don't forget the apalling opposition with Corbyn and Swinson at the helm of their respective parties. Both now also remedied. 

[Rayvin 5188]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

 After GE 2019 the tories gained a huge majority (Brexit, Corbyn) with a 5 year mandate, of course they are still in power. But  Johnson has already gone. The tories are massively behind in the polls, with the new leader making the polling even worse. Her cabinet is frankly just a joke, nobody can take them seriously. Economically we are heading for oblivion which will impact heavily on nearly all the electorate, so I can't see a scenario that polling will imminently improve, especially with her ruling out windfall taxes. I mean what the fuck more do you want to have happened in this time frame? It's like Newcastle are 5-0 up with 10 minutes to go and you are complaining they haven't won the game yet. 

 

I don't want anything more to have happened - in fact I'd far rather less had - I am saying that the final 10 minutes should be played with the same intensity as the preceding 80 minutes.

 

We haven't won yet, we cannot assume she will be gone by February (we thought Johnson would be gone within 6 months for fucks sake, he rattled on for over two years despite being an unmitigated disaster of a human being). And to reiterate, we have on many, many, many occasions predicted the collapse of the Tories over the past few years. It has not happened. They still have the press and the forces of darkness to call on, we still have to be vigilant. If we fuck this up at this next opportunity, I honestly don't think there's any coming back for this country. There probably isn't already.

[Renton 21428]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

And to reiterate, we have on many, many, many occasions predicted the collapse of the Tories over the past few years. It has not happened.

 

It really has though, imo at least. This tory party cannot and will not unite. Truss will not be as popular to the general public, especially the red wall. She has none of his "charisma". Given the tories have had a mandate for 5 years in government, and nothing can change that, how could they have collapsed any more, in your opinion? 

[Rayvin 5188]

Just now, Renton said:

 

It really has though, imo at least. This tory party cannot and will not unite. Truss will not be as popular to the general public, especially the red wall. She has none of his "charisma". Given the tories have had a mandate for 5 years in government, and nothing can change that, how could they have collapsed any more, in your opinion? 

 

I think there's some revisionism here - What tended to be said in here was that we expected a GE as a result of government collapse. This has never happened. I'm not going to go delving to prove that though so let's just say I'm wrong in my understanding of what people meant when they made those comments, and they in fact meant that the Tories would fall in the polls.

 

I think the thing you're sore about here is I'm not joining in the celebration of Truss being a moron. I know she's a moron. I am not "complaining" that we haven't won yet, I am stating it. It is a fact. We haven't won yet. I have outlined why I think we need to be careful and why I think Truss could be a threat. I may be wrong - I'm fine with that. But this place has a pretty fucking poor record on predicting outcomes in a political sense, so you'll forgive me if I'm not reassured by the notion that she'll be gone in February  

[Rayvin 5188]

On 19/02/2020 at 13:17, Renton said:

 

I did, although Dunt wasn't on it iirc. I've not been following it much tbh. I expect Starmer to win but the party is in a fucking terrible shape whoever inherits it. 

 

I guess my point is that over the last few years I have been wrong about virtually everything that has happened in politics. I got the 2015 election wrong. And the referendum. And the 2017 GE. And the 2019 one. I've massively over estimated people's capacity to understand even basic issues and vote for what's best for them. I've massively underestimated the ability of the right to manipulate these people. Perhaps you're still doing this, maybe you're right and there will be a turning point. I just don't know anymore. 

 

I did go and look, and while it's a very difficult thing to locate, I did find this. This isn't to call you out btw, this is to make really fucking clear that we have to be vigilant.

[spongebob toonpants 3958]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

But this place has a pretty fucking poor record on predicting outcomes in a political sense,

Apart from me. I'm always right

[spongebob toonpants 3958]

Truss has been in charge for less than 24 hours and has already made 2 huge mistakes imo

She has alienated more than half her own MPs by appointing only friends and supporters to cabinet, and ruled out the windfall tax. 

Can't predict the future, but she's toxic already