UK Government Thread

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?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/23/italy-migrant-pact-albania-keir-starmer-britain-giorgia-meloni

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.

UK Government Thread

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” :-D

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/23/rachel-reeves-defends-labour-cuts-winter-fuel-allowance

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.

As far as I recall I didn’t even argue with Jon.

You said lots of hurty things, and continue to post derisory comments about me. I’m considering my options, I haven’t definitively ruled out legal action.

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