Forum menu
This thread should be renamed ‘sore losers’
Well at least they know they've lost, it's the utterly deluded who think they've won I find most interesting.
This thread should be renamed ‘sore losers’
What are you looking forward to about your ‘win’ given the previous 9 years performance? I guess brexit, but that will be done in a year (apparently) so then what?
Member
This thread should be renamed ‘sore losers’
Would love to know your thoughts on why Johnson has removed workers rights protections from his bill ?
Exactly as us sore losers predicted
99.999% of us lost...
99.999% of us lost…
Yep. Guessing andypaul is in the 0.001% (or is just a great big troll)
Corbyn's sympathies with the Palestinians was a very big issue for some, bigger than the NHS, student fees, care for the elderly, wages etc. So I guess to that extent they'd feel they'd won.
It is amazing how people like Umunna sacrificed his parliamentary career over AS when he'd already said he'd never witnessed any racism in the LP in 20 years and we're still waiting for the evidence of it. An idiot but a useful idiot. Any job vacancies for useful idiots?
Yep. Guessing andypaul is in the 0.001%
Not a troll, just struggling to comprehend why anybody would think a Corbyn or Swinson governent would have been a viable and sensible alternative...? Please convince me!?
Not a troll, just struggling to comprehend why anybody would think a Corbyn or Swinson governent would have been a viable and sensible alternative…?
A Labour government would actually try and improve life for those in most need, bring about a more equal society, put funding back into public services that require it.
Yes, that cost money but it is money that needs to be spent and the country/people can afford it
The tory government is going to do the opposite of that just as they have during the last 40 years and the only people who do well from it are the people that really don't need any help.
Convinced?
just struggling to comprehend why anybody would think a Corbyn or Swinson governent would have been a viable and sensible alternative
I didn't want any of them to have a majority, I wanted a result where they all failed and got rid of their inept or toxic leaders and actually had to look at each other and realise they would all have to compromise to resolve the mess we are in.
anyone would think Corbyn or Swinson governent would have been a viable and sensible alternative…
Tbh, as much as I don’t like the Tories being in, the depressing fact is that there was no credible alternative. Even if Labour get a stellar leader now, the Tory majority is so large they can do what they like.
My son has cerebral palsy, I dread to think what will happen when he’s 18 and moves onto PIP. They’ll probably judge he’s 100% for to work and entitled to nothing.
I think this is why most people fear the next few years- with the rise in food banks, homeless most voters don’t seem too bothered if it doesn’t effect them
A Labour government would actually try and improve life for those in most need, bring about a more equal society, put funding back into public services that require it.
That is just a re hash of their failed election promise. There is nothing here to convince me or anybody else other than hardcore Corbynites
andypaul
Member
This thread should be renamed ‘sore losers’
And sore "winners", because there's going to be just as many of those over the next 5 years.
I think this is why most people fear the next few years- with the rise in food banks, homeless most voters don’t seem too bothered if it doesn’t effect them
Probably a combination of not being effected and not caring enough to find out. Most people probably wouldn't even know what PIP is let alone know about what a brutal system it is.
I think this is why most people fear the next few years- with the rise in food banks, homeless most voters don’t seem too bothered if it doesn’t effect them
I agree if we had a labour govermemt they would probably rid the need for foodbanks, for at least 5 years, at which point a Tory goverment would have to introduce austerity measures because yet again labour had spent money they just didnt have and nearly bankrupt the country ala 2010.
That is just a re hash of their failed election promise. There is nothing here to convince me or anybody else other than hardcore Corbynites
It is nothing to do with Corbyn. Any labour party under any labour leader would be looking after those in need more than any tory party. If you cannot see that they you really are not looking at the last 40 years very hard or listening to what the MPs are saying or seeing what MPs are in the cabinet.
I agree if we had a labour govermemt they would probably rid the need for foodbanks, for at least 5 years, at which point a Tory goverment would have to introduce austerity measures because yet again labour had spent money they just didnt have and nearly bankrupt the country ala 2010.
Austerity was a tory choice, they could have easily chosen to just take only from those that can afford it as I said.
What would you prefer - no food banks, less homeless, better social care, better equality etc,. and the better off made a bit worse off or just carrying on as currently?
trying to help and actually helping are very different things though. The political bigots are a big part of the problem, it's not star wars kerley.
The Tory party have different answers to the Labour party, try thinking along those lines and you can help move the discussion out of the playground.
The Tory party have different answers
The current Tory party has nothing but lies. It has no answers for the general public, and won’t deliver anything in the public good. Sorry.
Promise to raise the minimum wage before the election has already been moved to behind a caveat (that Brexit doesn’t damage the economy). Expect plenty more of this kind of thing.
nearly bankrupt the country ala 2010.
I don’t think we were that close to bankruptcy. A lot of the late 2000s financial problems stemmed from the sub prime lending (•)collapse in the USA. Who was in president of the US? Oh yes George Bush, the Republican.
• I was working in the UK for a subsidiary of the worst offender.
The Tory party have different answers to the Labour party
Getting the poor to pay for what the rich could afford, generally.
Kelvin don't allow bigotry to taint your visions of the future.
You are just chanting like the empty heads on the football stands. Voter's would say exactly the same about all opposing manifestos/pledges.
nearly bankrupt the country ala 2010.
I don’t think we were that close to bankruptcy. A lot of the late 2000s financial problems stemmed from the sub prime lending (•)collapse in the USA. Who was in president of the US? Oh yes George Bush, the Republican.
• I was working in the UK for a subsidiary of the worst offender.
This time a thousand. Everyone skips over the fact that the world was in unforeseen financial crisis at this time.
One of my best friends voted for Boris - he's sitting pretty on a property worth close to a million quid, has a couple of nice cars, no children, earns a good salary.
When I asked him why he voted Tory he said he wanted tax breaks - there was no way he was going to vote for Corbyn as all he was going to do is tax him more and put it into the NHS and schools - both of which are of no use to him (his words).
I literally couldn't believe what I was hearing - how on earth do you convince someone with that attitude that being taxed a bit more to help those worse off than yourself is a good thing for our society.
. Everyone skips over the fact that the world was in unforeseen financial crisis at this time.
It wasn't entirely unforeseen, the people who saw it coming were drowned out by those who were making money off it.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that austerity was unnecessary, it was a choice based on ideology, not economics, and a poor one. Places that pursued austerity did worse and took longer to recover than places that didn't.
If you are worried about the economy and not wanting to repeat the problems of 2008, why would you vote for a govt that wants to pursue brexit, which is guaranteed to knock several percentage points off the gdp? Who announced making it impossible to extend brexit thus giving back all the currency gains that the election provided?
trying to help and actually helping are very different things though.
Not really. Labour will try and they will succeed in many areas which is a whole lot better than the tories who won't be trying at all, in fact they will be doing the opposite and making things worse rather than helping at all.
The Tory party have different answers to the Labour party, try thinking along those lines and you can help move the discussion out of the playground.
They are not even answering the same questions. I left the playground in the 80's, without my school milk...
Kelvin don’t allow bigotry to taint your visions of the future.
I gave an example of a promise being made in the pre election Queen’s speech, repeated in the Conservative election manifesto, and repeated personally by the PM and the key minister during the campaign … only for it to be rowed back on immediately in the post election Queen’s Speech. So they say one thing to be elected, and another as soon as they have secured a mandate to do what they want. They are only in power due to knowingly lying to get elected. They are not in power to make our lives better “by different means” than Labour… there may have been plenty of past Conservative politicians with that aim… but just read the past writings of current government ministers and the PM to understand what we are in for. Or you could read what Sir John Major has said about them, and their real aims, and why they should not be trusted.
Let's not forget, the OECD costed the Labour manifesto and said it would place the UK in about the middle of average state expenditures across Europe and that Osborne said austerity was never about debt, which tripled under the Tories, but about 'teaching the ****less a lesson'. I wonder if those blue rinse Tories were told of the state pensions in Germany, Spain and Greece? £186 pw at 67 in the UK vs £500 at 60 elsewhere and then disinheriting your kids by having to sell your house to pay for social care.
On the upside all those people eating bleached chicken on their unpaid holidays from their zero hours jobs could bring great benefits to Southend, Blackpool, Clacton and Cleethorpes.
In cities like Manchester balletic skills will be needed to get past all the homeless but at least they won't have to pay off their student loans.
I wonder if those blue rinse Tories were told of the state pensions in Germany, Spain and Greece? £186 pw at 67 in the UK vs £500 at 60 elsewhere
And look at the French, you know the ones who shrug their shoulders and smoke a Gitanes. At least they bother to fight their government, upping their retirement age from 62 to 64.
Over here it's going to 68, the date was set, then moved forward 10 years! Suppose it's best to close your curtains and pretend it's not happening or find something pointless to protest about, Trump or some other distraction. Best not give the French protests too much news coverage in case our plebs get any ideas!
Good to see the snivelling toady British shysters (I'm being polite) leading by example.
Probably, but this is Boris we’re talking about here, a man that will lie at the drop of a hat to get what he wants. In this case a 5 year premiership with a v healthy majority, most of whom owe their newly found MP-ships to Boris, not his shadowy cabal of backers. So who exactly is he in thrall to now? They may well have spent money getting him there, but given the shape of the govt he now commands…You can probably add them to the pile of yesterday’s men; the ERG and the DUP…
I’m currently thinking this , I don’t think Boris is majorly concerned with Brexit unless it suits him.
He’s effectively disowned the previous 9 years,got away with a border in the Irish Sea and squirrelled workers rights somewhere else and blocked parliamentary oversight on trade deals.
Anyway Brexit is done on the 31 Jan and with a free ride for 12 months all he has to do is some crowd pleasers.
‘We’ll get a deal” is now the sound bite but what’s a deal.
‘We’ll get a deal”
I think you’ve missed something. The plan is now for the government to only refer to the Withdrawal Agreement as a “deal” not any agreement on what happens after the transition period. Likewise, only January 31st is to be referred to as Brexit, not when we actually come out from under the protection and institutions proper 11 months later.
“We have a great deal. We have left and, look, nothing has gone majorly wrong. Well done us, we have delivered on our promise.”
My son has cerebral palsy, I dread to think what will happen when he’s 18 and moves onto PIP. They’ll probably judge he’s 100% for to work and entitled to nothing.
Stop worrying. My daughter is 27, and has CP, and has nothing but a pretty decent life. She has no problem proving she is not suitable for the vast majority of work, she would like to do some work, but is severely disabled, so cannot do a great deal.She lives a pretty independent life, albeit with a carer coming to her 5 times a week for a hour.
As for the Tory candidate saying some disabled people should not earn as much as the standard wage, then, yes, I do agree with that. Some people cannot do a full job, but, they would like to try, and know their disability would limit their productivity. It isnt all about the earnings, it is social interaction.
Minimum wage, and you would not get a job, £5/hr then they may be offered a job, and that would help their self esteem no end. As it is now, employers just cannot afford to employ a severely disabled person (obviously apart from the very benevolent employers who do it as an act of charity, but they are very rare).
I wonder if those blue rinse Tories were told of the state pensions in Germany, Spain and Greece? £186 pw at 67 in the UK vs £500 at 60 elsewhere
Ahh that old Chestnut
Comparing apples an aubergines 🙂
Probably did a lot to get us where we are now.
I think you’ve missed something. The plan is now for the government to only refer to the Withdrawal Agreement as a “deal” not any agreement on what happens after the transition period. Likewise, only January 31st is to be referred to as Brexit, not when we actually come out form under the protection and institutions proper 11 months later.
“We have a great deal. We have left and, look, nothing has gone majorly wrong. Well done us, we have delivered on our promise.”
Yep Brexits done so none of that remainer/leaver shite just bow down before your new people’s government proletarian scum.
UK approves £4bn US takeover of defence company Cobham
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50874181
UK4SALE
So the NHS is safe then?
Nah....
Parliament now doesn’t have a say in the trade negotiations
so any US-U.K. deal that happens with the sort of things the big us pharma wants ie price rises and longer times before a drug can be made generic can happen.
The drug prices would go up an that would come out of the NHS budget. It’ll probably end up with certain treatments being withdrawn as they are aren’t cost effective.
There’s better people on here on this subject.
I think a previous ttip negotiators opinion was that without some of this nhs action the US wouldn’t be that interested in us.
Here have your ****ing hospitals you godforsaken plebs!
Parliament now doesn’t have a say in the trade negotiations
so any US-U.K. deal that happens with the sort of things the big us pharma wants ie price rises and longer times before a drug can be made generic can happen.
Will there be any safeguards against prices becoming exorbitant, or should I start saving up for insulin?
New housing scheme announced.
What's this ****ing air con, Margaret have you seen this we're not paying for that for those scrounging bastards.
alanl
Member
As for the Tory candidate saying some disabled people should not earn as much as the standard wage, then, yes, I do agree with that. Some people cannot do a full job, but, they would like to try, and know their disability would limit their productivity. It isnt all about the earnings, it is social interaction.
You know that's not what she was saying, right? She literally said that some disabled people should be paid less because "they don't understand money".
Will there be any safeguards against prices becoming exorbitant, or should I start saving up for insulin?
I’d not bother worrying about it TBH, everything’s conjecture until Boris does stuff, anything could happen.
I’d not bother worrying about it
Not insulin dependent I presume?
Tom, insulin becoming much more expensive for the NHS isn’t that likely, assuming we stick to current European suppliers. We’re not going to swap to USA suppliers. Even if a new USA trade deal did somehow push up prices, and the government “reformed” prescription prices to shift more of the burden of cost for staying alive on those who are insulin dependent, you still are very unlikely to have to bare the true cost of insulin, or be forced to pay premiums and excess to insurance companies, within 10-15 years. There are individuals within this Conservative government that would be happy to see this in the long term… but in any timescale you can reasonably plan for, they wouldn’t get away with implementing such changes politically.