Forum menu
We do still sell some argee... there's some stuff we can't withdraw unilaterally without wrecking agreements with Germany or the USA (neither of which currently have governments run by "parties of genocide", and nor do we).
UK PLC don't sell any arms to Israel, the likes of Thales, or Lockheed Martin and so on might, but again, i believe Labour recently suspended several licenses for some of these companies in relation to selling specific parts to Israel, not sure of the criteria, but it did cause a fair bit of outrage at the time.
UK PLC
WTF is UK PLC? You do realise that's a fabrication by the media to fuel the myth that the UK govt operates like a business with finite money rather than a currency-issuing nation state which isn't bound by solvency laws etc..
Labour recently suspended several licenses for some of these companies in relation to selling specific parts to Israel
Yeah, I put that in the Gaza thread. Very little goes direct from UK, and with the change of UK government most of that very little has now been suspended.
WTF is UK PLC? You do realise that’s a fabrication by the media to fuel the myth that the UK govt operates like a business with finite money rather than a currency-issuing nation state which isn’t bound by solvency laws etc..
No it isn't. It's a construct to look at the macro needs of the UK of which the economy is part, but training, education and skills, technology, health, investability, regulations, productivity, etc. are all part.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34460/documents/190189/default/
WTF is UK PLC? You do realise that’s a fabrication by the media to fuel the myth that the UK govt operates like a business with finite money rather than a currency-issuing nation state which isn’t bound by solvency laws etc..
9/10 for the rant on something that wasn't actually stated ;o)
The pot idea is not viable, can you see trade unions funnelling £10 million into it knowing they’re sticking £2 million or more into tory or reform pockets?
Same with the GBNews guys donations, or the reform multi-millionaire, they’re not going for that,
Yes, I realize that which is why I said I would be surprised if anyone continued to donate if they are not directly getting something out of it. It would stop donations dead.
UK PLC don’t sell any arms to Israel, the likes of Thales, or Lockheed Martin and so on might
Wow. So presumably using that criteria no country in the world is selling arms to Israel? And Israel isn't producing its own weapons either.
I am starting to agree with Ransos's comment concerning the entertainment value of your mental gymnastics argee. It's worth clicking on this thread just to discover what your latest weird concept is. It is certainly on par with the best that any Tory politician can think of.
There isn't much to say apart form Labour are making an abstract mess. No significant growth will turn up. The WFA trim is an abomination to save what is politically a rounding error made up by idiots - 1.4bn - (Of which the BoE just created 10bn out of thin air to help.) I mean she's just been handed 10bn headroom (in their language) and she's still harping on about black-holes.
This is not the preserve of truthful economic planning.
More big fails to come.
Why are they so bad?
Wow. So presumably using that criteria no country in the world is selling arms to Israel? And Israel isn’t producing its own weapons either.
I am starting to agree with Ransos’s comment concerning the entertainment value of your mental gymnastics argee. It’s worth clicking on this thread just to discover what your latest weird concept is. It is certainly on par with the best that any Tory politician can think of.
Yeah, ok, using actual facts is just pointless on this thread, a few posts back Daz is stating we're not a PLC, but now you're saying we are in the business of selling stuff, christ make up your minds!
Your use of a dartboard approach to being able to slag off the current government is what brings me entertainment, are we now back to the UK being at fault for every ill occurring around the world again, or just internal with the fanatical centrist, or is it far right labour cabinet?
No it isn’t. It’s a construct to look at the macro needs of the UK of which the economy is part
So why use the PLC tag? It's no more a PLC than it is a charity. The UK is a nation state, yes it needs all those things you listed but the PLC analogy is deliberately misleading. It serves no purpose than to hoodwink UK citizens into thinking it operates like a PLC. It doesn't, if it did it would have collapsed a long time ago.
a few posts back Daz is stating we’re not a PLC, but now you’re saying we are in the business of selling stuff, christ make up your minds!
It's pure semantics. Yes private companies sell the arms, but they wouldn't be able to do so without the express permission and active involvement of the UK govt. You know they have this novel thing called regulation, which governs what comes into and goes out of the country, and what British businesses can and can't do? Suggesting the UK has no involvement or culpability for arms supplies to Israel is ridiculous.
This is not the preserve of truthful economic planning.
More big fails to come.
Why are they so bad?
I don't know - did you stand for election? because its seems there's a lot of people in this thread know exactly what it is that politicians should be doing but who don't seem interested in actually doing it themselves?
UK PLC don’t sell any arms to Israel, the likes of Thales, or Lockheed Martin and so on might, but again, i believe Labour recently suspended several licenses for some of these companies in relation to selling specific parts to Israel, not sure of the criteria, but it did cause a fair bit of outrage at the time.
The UK Government (not "labour") controls export licenses for military technology. These may be for complete systems supplied by BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales, Leonardo etc. But they can also be for components or parts of systems with military capability - those might be supplied by the same big names or by smaller specialist firms. In some cases stopping supply of a tiny component may actually bugger up the supply chain of a much bigger system. The UK gov suspended 30 or the 350 export licenses currently in place for Israel.
In some cases the original development of that technology will have been sponsorred or supported by UK MOD funding.
The UK Government (not “labour”) controls export licenses for military technology.
Presume you're up to date with the election result?
I don’t know – did you stand for election? because its seems there’s a lot of people in this thread know exactly what it is that politicians should be doing but who don’t seem interested in actually doing it themselves?
I'm sorry, but I laughed at that. The forum does seem to have a huge untapped potential to resolve all world crises given the number of experts we have who are sure they are right, and I've been guilty of it myself.
So why use the PLC tag? It’s no more a PLC than it is a charity. The UK is a nation state, yes it needs all those things you listed but the PLC analogy is deliberately misleading. It serves no purpose than to hoodwink UK citizens into thinking it operates like a PLC. It doesn’t, if it did it would have collapsed a long time ago.
I think you're overegging that, the UK plc is just a convenient moniker as outlined in the paper and while the economy and the selection of economic model to adopt forms part of it, it was an objection to your false assertion that it's "a fabrication by the media to fuel the myth that the UK govt operates like a business with finite money"
It's not that, and it's not a media fabrication either.
I've said I'm not doing politics on here any more, no sense arguing against the dug in positions but I will call out where facts are 'misrepresented' as i did with Ernie's at the weekend - up to others to decide why they are being presented in that way and how much credibility the poster has when they adopt their usual deflect, deny, deride defences.
Your use of a dartboard approach to being able to slag off the current government
Er, it's not me that's slagging off the government currently, it's pretty much everyone incl the media and apparently voters.
And apparently the government agrees with them, as in "yeah okay, we won't be doing that anymore".
I’ve said I’m not doing politics on here any more
Remind us again tomorrow Jon.
And apparently the government agrees with them, as in “yeah okay, we won’t be doing that anymore”.
It's worse than that, their attitude is "we'll keep doing that, but this time we'll remember to write it in the Big Book of Bribes".
"We are the party of change, not the party of protest"
My mum sitting here had a few choice of her own to describe Reeves whilst watching that, none of which I could write on here.
Edit.. wot the **** is going on with this forum and attempting to include YouTube links?, every single time I go to post a link nothing shows up, then I have to open up on iPhone/iPad then edit and insert link, no surprise the amount of folk posting has dropped off
“We are the party of change, not the party of protest”
I'd have thought they'd want to stay well clear of labels of the format "Party of ...." as there are lots of more popular candidates than that. It writes the tory attack lines for the five years..
Party of 6k glasses
Party of fancy suits
Party of free footy tickets
Party of free Taylor Swift tickets
Party of lavish birthday parties
etc.
Derision, as predicted.
Oh lighten up man! This is an internet forum not The Times letter's page.
Derision, as predicted.
I originally expressed the view that it would be a shame if you no longer contributed, after your initial announcement
Now several weeks later and almost daily announcements it is starting to wear a little thin. Either contribute or don't contribute there really isn't any need to inform everyone daily of your intentions.
I didn't post for 10 days because there was nothing worth commenting on.
Then you posted (if I'm charitable) 'misinterpretations' of a Guardian article about TW that I corrected you on and which you as usual deflected, derided, like you usually do. I note you didn't correct.
Now Daz is posting 'misinterpretations' of what UK Plc is, that I have corrected.
I have no interest in the back and forth on whether Starmer's doing a good job or whether Reeves should adopt MMT - as you said that's worn terribly thin and won't change any opinions. But I'll correct factual errors where I see them.
because its seems there’s a lot of people in this thread know exactly what it is that politicians should be doing but who don’t seem interested in actually doing it themselves?
I hadn't realised that we needed to stand for election to know that we should buy our own suits.
But I’ll correct factual errors where I see them.
Likewise: your explanation of how NGDBs make decisions, for example
Oh lighten up man! This is an internet forum not The Times letter’s page.
If people stop misrepresenting the facts to suit their entrenched positions I won't feel any further need to get involved.
Now Daz is posting ‘misinterpretations’ of what UK Plc is, that I have corrected.
It's still a stupid analogy whoever created it. The fact that it came from a parliamentary committee only demonstrates how clueless our political representatives are. Either that or they're not clueless and they know exactly what they're doing.
But I’ll correct factual errors where I see them.
Our very own Jonathan Aitken with your sword of truth and shield of British fair play! 😀
Likewise: your explanation of how NGDBs make decisions, for example
What's an NGDB? Do you mean a NDPB
You are correcting me 'from your experience' on how they work and don't even get the acronym right? Hmmm........
Is that your last and final word on the matter?
(more derision)
Seriously, listen to Daz's suggestion......
"Ah, come on Dougal, lighten up!".
Is that your last and final word on the matter?
I can't say; are you and your pals going to start being a bit more reliable with the facts?
What’s an NGDB? Do you mean a NDPB
You are correcting me ‘from your experience’ on how they work and don’t even get the acronym right? Hmmm……..
I described how things work in the real world, based on recent personal experience dealing with central government. You pick up on a mistake with an abbreviation. Hmm indeed.
I can’t say; are you and your pals
You do realise how pathetic that sounds?
Let us keep taking the piss out of you….
Why not? Especially if I keep saying 'that's it's, I am definitely not discussing politics anymore,'. And then I repeat the same thing a couple of days later.
I can’t say; are you and your pals going to start being a bit more reliable with the facts?
I honestly don't know what you are talking about Jon. Here is an entire post of yours :
theotherjonv
Full Member
most disappointing to me is that behind the scenes, government with a small g – the Dept advisors, junior ministers, CS, etc., are getting on with quiet competence and whether it’s truth or perception – and frankly it’s the same thing right now – they are being badly let down by their figureheads. Even on here the talk is of shit corrupt government, when it’s a few (so far) letting the whole side down.
I still have hope that the right decisions will be allowed to be made (not necessarily the popular ones) by people that know what they’re doing, and in the meantime SKS gets his head down and stops stepping in things that distract from the real work.
I wonder what sort of a ride he’ll get at conference; hopefully someone with credibility and clout will tell him to get it fixed.
Posted 2 days ago
Nowhere are you challenging any "facts". You are simply giving your analysis of the current political situation. Which is absolutely fine of course. But why are you coming out with this nonsense that your contributions are solely focused on correcting "unreliable facts"?
Why not just post your opinions without all this false drama about correcting other people?
I described how things work in the real world, based on recent personal experience dealing with central government. You pick up on a mistake with an abbreviation. Hmm indeed.
So you say. Yet the links I provide explain how it works, whereas your 'mistake with an abbreviation' and previous less than accurate explanation doesn't make me think your experience is reliable. Simple as that.
You do realise how pathetic that sounds?
Pointing out where people are making stuff up to suit their own version is pathetic? OK. I think the personal attacks are pathetic. I see Ernie's still not addressing the content and just keeps doing the deflect and deride. Coming from the team that post the same thing over and over again, the latest being their repeat pathetic 'naughty guardian' jokes, I'm not bothered tbh.
If you want to discuss how the government is doing properly I won't stop you. Make shit up, I'll point it out.
So you say. Yet the links I provide explain how it works, whereas your ‘mistake with an abbreviation’ and previous less than accurate explanation doesn’t make me think your experience is reliable. Simple as that.
No, your link tells me what is written down. I think I'll stick with what I see happening rather than you quoting from a policy, which rather leads me to believe that you have no relevant experience at all
Pointing out where people are making stuff up to suit their own version is pathetic?
"Your pals" is pathetic. Do you think that people with whom you disagree all got together at an AGM or something? Grow up.
Make shit up, I’ll point it out.
Believing yourself to be an arbiter of truth just makes you look arrogant.
Nowhere are you challenging any “facts”.
Page 43 about halfway down, where you. I know you read it, you got all derisory about writing to the Guardian.
You made up a false interpretation to suit what you wanted. You still haven't said why.
No, your link tells me what is written down. I think I’ll stick with what I see happening rather than you quoting from a policy, which rather leads me to believe that you have no relevant experience at all
I declared my experience, quite openly. Provided a link. What's yours?
“Your pals” is pathetic. Do you think that people with whom you disagree all got together at an AGM or something? Grow up.
Of course not, but you're all very quick to pile on over the same things. It's you lot being derisory and borderline abusive, look at yourself before criticising others.
Believing yourself to be an arbiter of truth just makes you look arrogant.
Your words not mine. To the post above then, how do you see Ernie's honesty, I just pointed out the inaccuracies, you decide if it was deliberate or not, and if so why would they make stuff up?
Of course not, but you’re all very quick to pile on over the same things. It’s you lot being derisory and borderline abusive, look at yourself before criticising others.
"You're all". "You lot". There you go again. Can't help yourself, can you? I suppose it's only to be expected from someone evidently incapable of leaving the thread as they claimed they would do, how many times was it?
Your words not mine
Well, obviously. You used the quote function.
are you going to actually address the points, or just divert again?
Whether it's a concerted attempt or not (and I don't for a moment think it is) you're all doing the same thing so i think 'you lot' neatly saves bandwidth of writing your names out in full every time.
For avoidance of doubt, I don't think you have secret meetings and have made a decision to gang up, you've just reached that naturally, a bit like a mob. You just can't help yourselves, can you.
the latest being their repeat pathetic ‘naughty guardian’ jokes, I’m not bothered tbh.
Excellent, so let's carry on scrutinising the direction the current government is going and people's response to it.
Here is more from the Guardian which one stalwart Starmer supporter on this thread has compared to the Daily Mail:
Italy’s migrant pact with Albania makes no sense. So what’s the real reason Starmer is showing interest?
Perhaps there is only one plausible answer: propaganda. Labour knows it sits on a precarious majority, threatened by far-right politicians who scream about the danger of migration. Labour clearly thinks it can send a message to the most right-leaning voters in its coalition that it too is tough on migrants.
It does indeed sound plausible. And tragically Labour appear to be making exactly the same mistake that the Tories made with disastrous consequences...... trying to pull the rug from under Reform UK. I predict that the result will be the same for Labour as it was for the Tories - it will boost Reform UK as some people become convinced, thanks to the government banging on about it, that asylum seekers are indeed a huge issue which needs to be tackled.
If the problem is immigration/asylum seekers it will stand to reason for a lot of people that the solution must be the far-right which is obsessed with the issue. Especially if Starmer claims, as he seems to be, that the Italian far-right have cracked it.
We are told that Starmer’s government is pragmatic and interested in what works. But how can a “solution” that makes no logical sense from a political, legal and economic point of view still be considered “pragmatic”?
For avoidance of doubt, I don’t think you have secret meetings and have made a decision to gang up, you’ve just reached that naturally, a bit like a mob. You just can’t help yourselves, can you.
Really, playing the victim card doesn't suit you. The actual answer is that several people have independently reached similar conclusions.
are you going to actually address the points, or just divert again?
What points? I've set out what I believe to be the case, and you don't accept it. There's little more to be said on the matter. Not that it's stopping you, despite claiming you would do so several times.
Nowhere are you challenging any “facts”.
Page 43 about halfway down
So a completely different post then. You said that the only reason you are posting on this thread now is to correct facts and nothing more. That is obviously not true. Which is fine, you are as entitled as anyone else to post your opinions.
But jeezus stop being such a drama queen with your daily threats of not posting anymore other than to correct other people.
Anyway getting back to talking about the UK government, the actual subject of this thread, any further opinions?
What points?
I thought it was quite clear but I'll paste again, so you can't miss it this time. It'll also make it easy for Ernie to respond, as surprisingly he seems to still be avoiding the question.
On page 42 at the bottom Ernie posted a link to a Guardian article, which about halfway down the next page I responded to. Specifically that he had misrepresented some parts and I'm not sure if it was deliberate or not. He hasn't answered, other than to suggest I write to the Guardian (FWIW I think the Guardian article is ambiguous with an agenda, Ernie's version of it is just factually wrong)
I asked you directly above "how do you see Ernie’s honesty, I just pointed out the inaccuracies, you decide if it was deliberate or not, and if so why would they make stuff up?"
I also noted I'd declared my experience, you still haven't. To me you're just a random on a bike forum, why would I believe you when your accuracy so far has been off?
I asked you directly above “how do you see Ernie’s honesty, I just pointed out the inaccuracies, you decide if it was deliberate or not, and if so why would they make stuff up?”
Oh right. I haven't followed your exchange with Ernie, have no interest in doing so, and believe that he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Frankly, it's a bit weird that you want me to pass judgement, but maybe it's all part of the pile on you're imagining.
I also noted I’d declared my experience, you still haven’t. To me you’re just a random on a bike forum, why would I believe you when your accuracy so far has been off?
I've already declared as much as I'm prepared to do on a public forum. I'm politically restricted and it wouldn't be difficult to work out who I am. I'm not particularly bothered whether you believe me or not and I'm comfortable that I've accurately described my experience.
Note: Ernie still not answering. Turning again to derisory comments as usual.
I'm pathetic, a drama queen, playing the victim card? I'm not, I feel firmly on the front foot right now while you lot are in deny, divert, deride mode time and again.
All I want is an honest answer to why you misrepresented the article?
Why would you say things that aren't true?
I haven’t followed your exchange with Ernie
I can't even remember what it was about !
Oh right. I haven’t followed your exchange with Ernie, have no interest in doing so, and believe that he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. Frankly, it’s a bit weird that you want me to pass judgement, but maybe it’s all part of the pile on you’re imagining.
You actually commented on it, about 5 posts later. That must have been hard without following it.
Why's it weird, to want to correct mistakes? Do you think he was just mistaken or do you think he embellished to make the story worse than it was?
I can’t even remember what it was about !
Careful now: if we keep quoting each other we might be accused of bullying.
I can’t even remember what it was about !
Handily I've provided plenty of references. Bottom of p42, my challenge was on p43, about halfway down.
Yeah but we are on page 48 now.
Edit : Okay I'll have a look.
You actually commented on it, about 5 posts later. That must have been hard without following it.
You'll have to show me. I genuinely have no idea what you're on about.
Why’s it weird, to want to correct mistakes?
You have already said that I'm an internet random. Why would you solicit my opinion on your exchange with a different internet random? If you don't think that's a bit odd, we can agree to disagree.
For avoidance of doubt, I don’t think you have secret meetings and have made a decision to gang up
On the contrary, you should see the chat on the STW revolutionary whatsapp group. 🙂
Yeah but we are on page 48 now.
Yes. You've been doing deny, deflect, deride for 6 pages now. But it's OK, we're here now. Here's a link, make it even easier.
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/uk-government-thread/page/43
You have already said that I’m an internet random. Why would you solicit my opinion on your exchange with a different internet random?
I don't have an issue with your opinion on that, the facts are there, easy to read and assimilate. I don't know whether to believe you in your assertions about the inner workings of government, you've been inaccurate on some of your content so far. But you don't need 'credentials' to answer the question about whether you think Ernie was being deliberately misleading.
Of course, not calling out clear misdirection could be interpreted as a bit, IDK - partisan. But you're not a group, you're all individuals so you've no confidences to betray.
Blimey it was 4 days ago! This:
Labour in apparent disarray over Thames cleanup plan
Yeah you didn't agree with my comment or you thought I was lying or something. And I don't think you liked the Guardian headline either.
Okay fair enough. I think it might be time to let it go now, no?
But you don’t need ‘credentials’ to answer the question about whether you think Ernie was being deliberately misleading.
Again, I don't know and am not going to bother finding out because I don't care. I really don't understand why you want me to adjudicate on this matter.
Of course, not calling out clear misdirection could be interpreted as a bit, IDK – partisan
Would it make it easier if I just agreed with whatever you're on about?
On the contrary, you should see the chat on the STW revolutionary whatsapp group. 🙂
I've told you who I work for.... I know exactly what you've been posting; I've got a print out in front of me 😉
Would it make it easier if I just agreed with whatever you’re on about?
LOL ! That is exactly what was going through my mind. 🙂
Yeah you didn’t agree with my comment or you thought I was lying or something. And I don’t think you liked the Guardian headline either.
Okay fair enough. I think it might be time to let it go now, no?
Not quite. Didn't agree with your comment because it (they - there were two) were blatantly not true. You took what was written and converted it into something else. Why?
Ransos - noted, frustrating as it's such a simple question but I'll put you down as No Comment, and form my own opinion about why not.
Ransos – noted, frustrating as it’s such a simple question but I’ll put you down as No Comment, and form my own opinion about why not.
Gosh, I'll just have to find a way to cope. Perhaps you can find someone else to take the bait and play your game of taking sides.
LOL ! That is exactly what was going through my mind. 🙂
You quoted me again! You do realise that opinions are going to be formed?
Is it just me or is everyone on the last page a bit inebriated?
It's probably you.
Edit : I am a teetotaler but I think this page would have probably made more sense to me after two or three pints.
I don't think it's possible to be a bit inebriated...
Hang on though: if me, Ernie and dazh are seen to be in disagreement, what does this mean?
Definitely me!
Anyway back on topic. Rachel Reeves smelling the coffee and betraying the lie of everything she's said for the past two months...
"lets just change the rules" 😀
Opinions were formed a while ago. You're just reinforcing them now.
Perhaps you can find someone else to take the bait and play your game of taking sides.
Why you wouldn't want to be on the side of truth and fact I don't really get, but free choice.
if me, Ernie and dazh are seen to be in disagreement, what does this mean?
That you've hatched a cunning diversionary tactic on your 'secret' whatsapp group. I've got the screenshot in front of me.
Opinions were formed a while ago. You’re just reinforcing them now.
I'm devastated.
Why you wouldn’t want to be on the side of truth and fact I don’t really get, but free choice.
I'm on the side of being entirely indifferent to your spat with Ernie.
It wasn't a spat ! As far as I recall I didn't even argue with Jon.
You can't be indifferent in the fight for truth; if you're not with me, you're against me.
It wasn’t a spat ! As far as I recall I didn’t even argue with Jon
Fair point: he does seem keen to generate one. He has opinions and everything.
Looks like the preposterous 5 year 'debt' rule might get a tweak.
(debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast.)
It never made any sense at all. Because it's a) based on a 5 year 'forecast' b) cleverly could be their last year c) you can't really increase GDP without enlarging government 'debt' over the long haul - the two things mirror. d) the economy is currently stagnating/declining and if growth is the aim then you have to spend much much more.
Basically this is mostly all that is stopping the Labour party being sensible about investment.
A self-inflcited economic wound.
Let's hope.
I am not sure what might be 'factually incorrect' in this FT opinion piece but it certainly paints a Labour government in quite a crisis.
https://archive.li/2024.09.24-050043/https://www.ft.com/content/213fc4e9-e941-4676-913c-5aaebb1a6c83
Dips into thread....
Observes prolonged, tangental, pedantic bickering.
....Bye for now