Politics

[Rayvin 5176]

It is exactly like the 'guns' situation in the US. Or when Corbyn was calling out the government over Grenfell. If the immediate aftermath of shit like this isn't the time to make a political point, I don't know when is. As Alex says, the only reason people complain that it's 'not the right time' is because they know damn fucking well that this is the -only- time it will be uncomfortable for them to have to deal with the criticism. Indeed the only time anyone will actually care.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rayvin

[Alex 34822]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

It is exactly like the 'guns' situation in the US. Or when Corbyn was calling out the government over Grenfell. If the immediate aftermath of shit like this isn't the time to make a political point, I don't know when is. As Alex says, the only reason people complain that it's 'not the right time' is because they know damn fucking well that this is the -only- time it will be uncomfortable for them to have to deal with the criticism. Indeed the only time anyone will actually care.

I find the counter-opinion to what you say to be absolutely bizarre. You have a party in government under the influence (and in the pay of) of an extremely dodgy foreign power and the same people are trying to close down free speech about it for political gain and the person speaking out about it is the one being painted as a traitor.

[The Mighty Hog 508]

Seems like this is finally getting since traction, the home secretary has said the government is going to look into it

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.reMDGd0qK#.lsGZRb9QP

[Alex 34822]

Like they've only just found out about it.

[Christmas Tree 4685]

29 minutes ago, Alex said:

It was an absolutely pertinent issue to raise and the only reason you're 'outraged' by it is because some other people have called it political point scoring and the irony is, they've only called it that for that exact same purpose. They're either enemies of Corbyn in his own party who are getting all holier than thou at the first opportunity or Tories who want to deflect attention away from a very uncomfortable proof. No surprise to see you lap it up though

 

That just highlights your poor grasp on politics. The Labour MP’s who all spoke, do so day in and out and do not attack their own front bench. 

 

Not suprisining the usual suspects will turn a blind eye and see know wrong in comrade Corbyn.

[ewerk 30252]

Who on here is a fan of Corbyn?

[Alex 34822]

Not worth the steam off my shit tbh

[Rayvin 5176]

Just now, Christmas Tree said:

 

That just highlights your poor grasp on politics. The Labour MP’s who all spoke, do so day in and out and do not attack their own front bench. 

 

Not suprisining the usual suspects will turn a blind eye and see know wrong in comrade Corbyn.

 

 

CT, can you tell us why criticising the government for this is not acceptable. What is it exactly that makes it offensive?

[Alex 34822]

It's not the time or the place because IDS says so.

[Christmas Tree 4685]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

 

CT, can you tell us why criticising the government for this is not acceptable. What is it exactly that makes it offensive?

 

Its depressingly sad you have to ask.

 

When a British PM stands up in parliament and announces that a foreign state has used chemical weapons on the streets of Britain, Parliament (as happened yesterday, bar 1), unites and condems the action.

 

It stands together and puts on a display of unity to the foreign aggressor.

 

It doesn’t plead that we won’t be too hard on the aggressor or bring up cheap political issues about donations from UK CITIZENS that has nothing to do with a chemical attack on UK soil.

 

A lot of good MP’s in the party you support understand this and voiced their unity for the government and disdain at Corbyn.

 

If you are so blinded by the cult of Corbyn I genuinely feel sorry for you.

[Alex 34822]

that's pathetic even by your lowly standards

[Dr Gloom 21812]

1 minute ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Its depressingly sad you have to ask.

 

When a British PM stands up in parliament and announces that a foreign state has used chemical weapons on the streets of Britain, Parliament (as happened yesterday, bar 1), unites and condems the action.

 

It stands together and puts on a display of unity to the foreign aggressor.

 

It doesn’t plead that we won’t be too hard on the aggressor or bring up cheap political issues about donations from UK CITIZENS that has nothing to do with a chemical attack on UK soil.

 

A lot of good MP’s in the party you support understand this and voiced their unity for the government and disdain at Corbyn.

 

If you are so blinded by the cult of Corbyn I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Corbyn condemned the attack, you fuckwit. It was the first thing he said in his address 

[acrossthepond 867]

The role of the opposition is to stand in fucking opposition. When May announces chemical weapons have been used by Russia, that's a real threat and the country does indeed have to stand united. But that doesn't mean we all have to hold hands and sing kumbaya like the Democrats did here after 9/11, and accede to everything the ruling party does in the interest of "national security", or whatever nonsense jargon is used in the UK political realm to justify misdeeds. What better moment could there be to ask about the Tories' connection to Russian political funding than right now - if you think the opposition should actually act as a watchdog for the public interest, rather than a lapdog for the party in power?

[Alex 34822]

17 minutes ago, acrossthepond said:

The role of the opposition is to stand in fucking opposition. When May announces chemical weapons have been used by Russia, that's a real threat and the country does indeed have to stand united. But that doesn't mean we all have to hold hands and sing kumbaya like the Democrats did here after 9/11, and accede to everything the ruling party does in the interest of "national security", or whatever nonsense jargon is used in the UK political realm to justify misdeeds. What better moment could there be to ask about the Tories' connection to Russian political funding than right now - if you think the opposition should actually act as a watchdog for the public interest, rather than a lapdog for the party in power?

Good point well made. It was the sheep-like voting in the 'interests of national security' that got us into Iraq.

[Rayvin 5176]

29 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Its depressingly sad you have to ask.

 

When a British PM stands up in parliament and announces that a foreign state has used chemical weapons on the streets of Britain, Parliament (as happened yesterday, bar 1), unites and condems the action.

 

It stands together and puts on a display of unity to the foreign aggressor.

 

It doesn’t plead that we won’t be too hard on the aggressor or bring up cheap political issues about donations from UK CITIZENS that has nothing to do with a chemical attack on UK soil.

 

A lot of good MP’s in the party you support understand this and voiced their unity for the government and disdain at Corbyn.

 

If you are so blinded by the cult of Corbyn I genuinely feel sorry for you.

 

CT, I would have said the same thing as Corbyn. Apparently half of this board would have. Sorry that this depresses you, but these questions have to be asked.

[ewerk 30252]

50 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

 

Its depressingly sad you have to ask.

 

When a British PM stands up in parliament and announces that a foreign state has used chemical weapons on the streets of Britain, Parliament (as happened yesterday, bar 1), unites and condems the action.

 

It stands together and puts on a display of unity to the foreign aggressor.

 

It doesn’t plead that we won’t be too hard on the aggressor or bring up cheap political issues about donations from UK CITIZENS that has nothing to do with a chemical attack on UK soil.

 

A lot of good MP’s in the party you support understand this and voiced their unity for the government and disdain at Corbyn.

 

If you are so blinded by the cult of Corbyn I genuinely feel sorry for you.

I’ll ask you again, why did May not respond to the exact same Labour concerns when they were raised in 2016?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3809]

CT would lick Theresa May's shit off Boris Johnson's cock.

[Alex 34822]

24 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

CT would lick Theresa May's shit off Boris Johnson's cock.

Thanks for leaving me with that thought

[Dr Gloom 21812]

[Rayvin 5176]

Has anyone mentioned that John Redwood (Tory MP) has claimed that austerity was unnecessary in his blog last week? This is the pro-Brexit guy who is also the head of some manner of investment firm which recommended to its clients that they should move their money out of the UK following the referendum - so while he's a cynical bastard, he is at least clued up on finance. His own words:

 

I have not been worried about the state deficit for sometime, ever since Mr Brown found out that the UK state can literally print money to pay its bills. Mr Osborne, originally a critic of this in opposition, then discovered its charms in office as well. It turned out to have no adverse consequences on shop price inflation, though of course it caused massive price inflation in government bonds, because it was accompanied by severe pressure against bank lending to the private sector to avoid an inflationary blow off. I always adjust the outstanding debt by the £435 bn the state has bought up, as this is in no sense a debt we owe. So our government borrowing level (excluding future state pensions which some here worry about and which have always been pay as you go out of taxation) is modest by world standards at around 65% of GDP, and at current interest rates is affordable.

Most of the state debt we owe to each other anyway. The government owes it to taxpayers who own the debt in their pension funds and insurance policies. The state can always raise enough money to pay the domestic bills backed by the huge powers to tax, and as we have just seen when credit expansion and inflation are low it can also use liquidity created by the monetary authorities.

 

Austerity was an unnecessary action, a cover merely for stripping back the state to adhere to Thatcherite dogma, and the Tories pursuing it has brought us to the brink of ruin with Brexit (which would never, ever have happened without it), sent the Labour party to the left in a search for answers, and dismantled centrism. So there you go CT. The Tories fucked your newly beloved centrism to within an inch of its life, with something that many of us told you repeatedly, was an outright lie.

 

Article goes on to say, about Redwood:

 

He has admitted there is no need for a government to balance its books.

He has admitted QE cancels debt.

He has then admitted the whole ‘passing debt to the next generation’ phobia is wrong.

And he has admitted as a result that there was no reason for austerity, the imposition of which served no economic purpose.

As a result he has, in two paragraphs, shredded the whole economic rationale on which he has been elected to Parliament.

And in so doing he has driven coach and horses through all those who still say that austerity must continue, because what he has done is make clear that if this is economically unnecessary then  it can only be driven by incompetence, or a hatred of government, or class warfare, or all three.

He is right on this. Deficits do not matter if there is less than full employment. And governments can cancel debt, at will. Debt, in fact, only exists as a favour to financial markets, who desperately need it but have no hold over government as a result.

What does matter is that people like him do not want to use this knowledge for the good of people in this country and elsewhere.

It is time others did.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/03/06/john-redwood-admits-it-there-never-was-a-reason-for-austerity/

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rayvin

[Christmas Tree 4685]

John Redwoods a nutter, at one time the Tory’s versionof Corbyn, thankfully never elected leader.

[Alex 34822]

The desire to link Corbyn to almost everything (despite having voted for him ) is akin to essembee bringing up the mackems in practically very post

[Rayvin 5176]

6 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

John Redwoods a nutter, at one time the Tory’s versionof Corbyn, thankfully never elected leader.

 

He's the Chief Global Strategist of an Investment Firm. Do those sorts of companies often put nutters in key roles?

 

I'm curious though, in what way is he a nutter? Keeping in mind that the current cabinet contains one Boris Johnson.

Edited March 13, 2018 by Rayvin

[Dr Gloom 21812]

11 minutes ago, Christmas Tree said:

John Redwoods a nutter, at one time the Tory’s versionof Corbyn, thankfully never elected leader.

totally agree that redwood is a vile human being but he's right on austerity. i bet you osborne would agree with him off the record. 

"it was the right [ideological] thing to do"

[Alex 34822]

20 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

He's the Chief Global Strategist of an Investment Firm. Do those sorts of companies often put nutters in key roles?

 

I'm curious though, in what way is he a nutter? Keeping in mind that the current cabinet contains one Boris Johnson.

Expect a response along the lines of:

Of come on, everyone knows he's a nutter