General Election 2019 thread

[goatwack]

Cancel cancel cancel.

I read today that our Pen has had difficulty in the past with defining a woman, so I'm out Not a bedside manner I'd wish to become acquainted with.

So I'm all in for Priti "Shark" Patel in 2024.

I see you've ascended to quoting yourself now. A status few attain

 

[mcgameboy]

I'm just so sick to death of the lot of them, the country has to move on from this tory musical chairs game sooner or later and it looks like the polls are finally shifting in that direction.

A fresh start huh? the party has been in power 12 years!

Rishi's gonna fix the economy huh? he's been in charge of it for 2 and a half years.

And WHY have they been in power for 12 years?

Would it be something to do with going head to head with a weak and flaccid Opposition that hasn't yet figured out how to GTFO of its own way?

 

[09237653]

And WHY have they been in power for 12 years?

Would it be something to do with going head to head with a weak and flaccid Opposition that hasn't yet figured out how to GTFO of its own way?

The tables are turning at least, 70%+ of the country do not want them in power. I'm sure the R/W media will do their best to continue the oligarchy though.

 

[mcgameboy]

The tables are turning at least, 70%+ of the country do not want them in power. I'm sure the R/W media will do their best to continue the oligarchy though.

Time will tell.

I am just glad that, as someone who lives in N.Ireland, I don't have to choose from either of them, because they are both rubbish.

The great Mark Twain sums it up best for me......

"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it"

 

[Kroffe]

Would it be something to do with going head to head with a weak and flaccid Opposition

Wouldnt that make the Tories the 'strong and erect' party using this analogy?
Im not sure i want to think of Boris like that.
=(

But i agree with the Twain quote, on the big things that matter the political right and left wing are part of the same evil bird.

 

[mcgameboy]

Wouldnt that make the Tories the 'strong and erect' party using this analogy?
Im not sure i want to think of Boris like that.
=(

But i agree with the Twain quote, on the big things that matter the political right and left wing are part of the same evil bird.

Me neither.

Thing is, the Tories don't need to be strong and erect, they just need to be less weak and flaccid. Which really says it all about the state of UK politics.

I think Goatie called the Tories and Labour a ruinous duopoly in a recent post. He's not wrong.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Me neither.

Thing is, the Tories don't need to be strong and erect, they just need to be less weak and flaccid. Which really says it all about the state of UK politics.

I think Goatie called the Tories and Labour a ruinous duopoly in a recent post. He's not wrong.

 

[dunover]

Nope, still not getting it at all where he is coming from.

The workers that got the furlough money (it didn't go to the rich) benefited too (they otherwise would have had fuck all) so why shouldn't they pay some of that back now via increased taxes.

There's no telling him mate - the end destination of the furlough money was exactly the same as it would have been if it was earnt and spent normally, by the same workers buying the same things, paying the same bills they would normally have outside of lockdown. It's a non-argument, moot and completely pointless. I think he knows it too, but has dug himself into a hole here by his zealous belief in the spoutings of a single commentator he has latched onto. That's what happens when you look to others for your ideas and opinions.

 

[dunover]

At least your "epiphany" came late rather than never mate

Did you not see the word 'wealthy' in my post you quoted?

 

[dunover]

'I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said ''Every prime minister needs a Willie''. A woman like me doesn't have one,'

Wow Ms Mordaunt, some powerful stuff there.

Were it not for the fact that it doesn't really state much of anything, by subverting an old famous quote and giving an answer to it that nobody cared about, nor her infantilized language.

Because as we already know, she's as woke as they come, and her policies likely to be as Progressive as you'll ever see- and the reason why her run ends here. If people wanted that, they'd vote Labour!

After all, who can forget her 'trans men are men and trans women are women' statement not terribly long ago?

Sorry Penny, good try to ingratiate yourself at the 11th hour, but it's a thumb's down from me


View attachment 169972

Apart from Rayner-Basinger, notice how most of the Tory ladies are quite 'Milfy' fit compared to Labour's??? Dorries, the 'fingerer', Truss, her here....

Must be the privileged upbringing, salads and not MacSandwiches.

That said, the Labour one who used to be around, the one with the large rack wasn't too shabby, Jess someone or other.

 

[slot_zombie]

I see you've ascended to quoting yourself now. A status few attain

Oh, you are naughty, but I like you.

Nowt dodgy, mind.

 

[goatwack]

Hope everyone's seriously considering Liz For Leader™ ?

Honestly a bit disappointed she didn't use Liz 4 Leader, but can't have it all.

So far she's mentioned her standing up to Putin, that she's ready to make the 'tough decisions' going forward (basically Austerity mk.II) and that we ought to 'trust' in Truss.

Some more shit about levelling-up etc, and I think I caught her espousing that we ought to be an 'aspiration nation'

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Mordaunt vs Sunak it is then!

 

[Webzcas]

What a borefest her speech was. Has about as much charisma as someone who does not have any charisma LOL. Same old same old.

 

[09237653]

One thing for sure whoever wins, we all lose.

 

[Mr_Slot5]

What a borefest her speech was. Has about as much charisma as someone who does not have any charisma LOL. Same old same old.

Your post reminds me of this moment

 

[dunover]

Your post reminds me of this moment

View attachment 170022

The classic Van Rompuy (or whatever his name was) dressing down from our Nigel....

 

[ChopleyIOM]

There's no telling him mate - the end destination of the furlough money was exactly the same as it would have been if it was earnt and spent normally, by the same workers buying the same things, paying the same bills they would normally have outside of lockdown. It's a non-argument, moot and completely pointless. I think he knows it too, but has dug himself into a hole here by his zealous belief in the spoutings of a single commentator he has latched onto. That's what happens when you look to others for your ideas and opinions.

For the slow ones at the back, I'll try this one more time.

Yes the money ends up in the same place as it usually does (the rich), the difference with the Covid money is that it was created by the Bank Of England as new government debt.

Normally money goes round in a kind of circle, like this:



But with the Coivd money we have this:



As for 'the spoutings of a single commentator', this is a guy who worked shit out to the extent he was a millionaire in his twenties, seeing something that no other economists at the time were seeing, betting on it for Citibank, and winning big.

Oh yes, one final point, the bets he made back when he was at Citibank? You can't make them any more, the banks have now priced them into their standard models, because they realised he was right, whilst the current economic system persists, the economy itself will not recover, and wealth inequality will continue to increase massively.

 

[interlog]

For the slow ones at the back, I'll try this one more time.

Yes the money ends up in the same place as it usually does (the rich), the difference with the Covid money is that it was created by the Bank Of England as new government debt.

Normally money goes round in a kind of circle, like this:

View attachment 170229

But with the Coivd money we have this:

View attachment 170230

As for 'the spoutings of a single commentator', this is a guy who worked shit out to the extent he was a millionaire in his twenties, seeing something that no other economists at the time were seeing, betting on it for Citibank, and winning big.

Oh yes, one final point, the bets he made back when he was at Citibank? You can't make them any more, the banks have now priced them into their standard models, because they realised he was right, whilst the current economic system persists, the economy itself will not recover, and wealth inequality will continue to increase massively.

Yes it was funded by the Government creating more debt, but why should the worker pictured sitting at his desk not pay back that debt too via means of tax rises. Because what this chap is alluding to, is that the rich should pick up the bill for this and the worker sitting at his desk shouldn't contribute at all.

 

[dunover]

For the slow ones at the back, I'll try this one more time.

Yes the money ends up in the same place as it usually does (the rich), the difference with the Covid money is that it was created by the Bank Of England as new government debt.

Normally money goes round in a kind of circle, like this:

View attachment 170229

But with the Coivd money we have this:

View attachment 170230

As for 'the spoutings of a single commentator', this is a guy who worked shit out to the extent he was a millionaire in his twenties, seeing something that no other economists at the time were seeing, betting on it for Citibank, and winning big.

Oh yes, one final point, the bets he made back when he was at Citibank? You can't make them any more, the banks have now priced them into their standard models, because they realised he was right, whilst the current economic system persists, the economy itself will not recover, and wealth inequality will continue to increase massively.

It remains a non-argument. So for those at the back, and in a coma, I repeat:

Normal worker in paid employment earns 15k in 6 months and spends it on rent/mortgage, food, fuel etc. with certain entities like the landlord, mortgage company, supermarket and garage taking their percentage profit as usual.

In lockdown, chancellor pays the idle worker 12k in 6 months (80%) and he spends it on rent/mortgage, food, fuel etc. with certain entities like the landlord, mortgage company, supermarket and garage taking their percentage profit as usual.

Now fuck-me, but that seems pretty straighforward to me, not a subject for your obfuscation or blatherings on behalf of ******* (fill social media commentator as applicable.)

All the chancellor has done, to prevent mass starvation and homelessness and economic collapse, is maintain the monetary circulation of the economy. In fact, the capitalist pigs who own businesses like pubs, bakeries, shops etc. actually lost out most as much of their income derived from the missing 20% of income, disposable.

Of course, in your insane marxist vision, if the result of furlough was existing entities still made their profit I suppose the workers should have been deprived of income to prevent such evil.

 

[paul7388]

For the slow ones at the back, I'll try this one more time.

Yes the money ends up in the same place as it usually does (the rich), the difference with the Covid money is that it was created by the Bank Of England as new government debt.

Normally money goes round in a kind of circle, like this:

View attachment 170229

But with the Coivd money we have this:

View attachment 170230

As for 'the spoutings of a single commentator', this is a guy who worked shit out to the extent he was a millionaire in his twenties, seeing something that no other economists at the time were seeing, betting on it for Citibank, and winning big.

Oh yes, one final point, the bets he made back when he was at Citibank? You can't make them any more, the banks have now priced them into their standard models, because they realised he was right, whilst the current economic system persists, the economy itself will not recover, and wealth inequality will continue to increase massively.

So now it has got to the stage where anyone that does not agree with what you say is classed as slow. So you are basically now making out that you are right and anyone that does not agree with you is slow and stupid.

Well i must be really slow as i still think you are the one that actually does not get it. The companies are not making money out of the furlough. Half the businesses would have had to let staff go and had no way of paying wages to staff if it had not been introduced. The money still circulates . Furlough goes to workers. Workers pay bills and rent . Life continues. Where as without furlough the circle would have near enough ended. Bills would not have been paid. More businesses would have gone bust , people would be in far worse debt.

Must be so good to live on IOM that was not as badly hit by Covid. In a sheltered little world out of touch with the reality that is really going on and basing your knowledge on your select news articles.

But it would help people maybe understand where you are coming from if you were not so condescending and making people out that disagree with you to be slow.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

So now it has got to the stage where anyone that does not agree with what you say is classed as slow. So you are basically now making out that you are right and anyone that does not agree with you is slow and stupid.

Well i must be really slow as i still think you are the one that actually does not get it. The companies are not making money out of the furlough. Half the businesses would have had to let staff go and had no way of paying wages to staff if it had not been introduced. The money still circulates . Furlough goes to workers. Workers pay bills and rent . Life continues. Where as without furlough the circle would have near enough ended. Bills would not have been paid. More businesses would have gone bust , people would be in far worse debt.

Must be so good to live on IOM that was not as badly hit by Covid. In a sheltered little world out of touch with the reality that is really going on and basing your knowledge on your select news articles.

But it would help people maybe understand where you are coming from if you were not so condescending and making people out that disagree with you to be slow.

I've been trying, patiently and politely for the last several pages of this thread to explain the concept in play here, and even now it's still being misunderstood, misrepresented and ignored to the extent that dunover saw fit to imbue himself with the ability to actually read my mind and suggest I didn't believe what I was saying.

So if at the tail end of that I've said something that is perhaps slightly rude, then I apologise, but bloody hell this is hard work.



This is about the massive accumulation of wealth and assets by the rich and super-rich during Covid, in which £450bn of new government debt was created, and yet the ultimate beneficiaries of that massive money printing programme are being asked to do bugger all to pay any of it back - and they're using the money they were gifted to buy up anything and everything they can, whilst your average worker is paying the highest rates of tax they have for seventy years.

Furlough was the right thing to do, that's not the point I'm debating here, the problem is around how that £450bn is recouped in its aftermath, with inflation pushing 10%, wage 'rises' in negative territory, and worse to come, why does the burden of repaying that £450bn fall on the people who, in the main, didn't get to keep any of it?

 

[interlog]

I've been trying, patiently and politely for the last several pages of this thread to explain the concept in play here, and even now it's still being misunderstood, misrepresented and ignored to the extent that dunover saw fit to imbue himself with the ability to actually read my mind and suggest I didn't believe what I was saying.

So if at the tail end of that I've said something that is perhaps slightly rude, then I apologise, but bloody hell this is hard work.

View attachment 170232

This is about the massive accumulation of wealth and assets by the rich and super-rich during Covid, in which £450bn of new government debt was created, and yet the ultimate beneficiaries of that massive money printing programme are being asked to do bugger all to pay any of it back - and they're using the money they were gifted to buy up anything and everything they can, whilst your average worker is paying the highest rates of tax they have for seventy years.

Furlough was the right thing to do, that's not the point I'm debating here, the problem is around how that £450bn is recouped in its aftermath, with inflation pushing 10%, wage 'rises' in negative territory, and worse to come, why does the burden of repaying that £450bn fall on the people who, in the main, didn't get to keep any of it?

Cause if the scheme wasn't there they would have had sod all. Why shouldn't they pay some of it back through tax increases?

 

[paul7388]

why does the burden of repaying that £450bn fall on the people who, in the main, didn't get to keep any of it?

But this is the part people are also trying to explain to you. Yes the people never got to keep it. But they benefited from it. They benefited a lot more than the rich people.

That money kept them in houses. Fed them, paid most of their normal bills. and kept a job for majority to go back to. So yes i would say they kept it and benifited. Without it and the help available many would now be homeless. Deep in debt and in a total mess.

The rich people as you put it never got paid the furlough money. Some businesses may have been able to pay staff without furlough most could not . As for paying it back. Agreed the filthy rich should pay more in tax. But other way to look at it would be just because the goverment had to print money to pay all these schemes why should they actually pay more to pay it back.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But this is the part people are also trying to explain to you. Yes the people never got to keep it. But they benefited from it. They benefited a lot more than the rich people.

That money kept them in houses. Fed them, paid most of their normal bills. and kept a job for majority to go back to. So yes i would say they kept it and benifited. Without it and the help available many would now be homeless. Deep in debt and in a total mess.

The rich people as you put it never got paid the furlough money. Some businesses may have been able to pay staff without furlough most could not . As for paying it back. Agreed the filthy rich should pay more in tax. But other way to look at it would be just because the goverment had to print money to pay all these schemes why should they actually pay more to pay it back.

They 'benefitted' insofar as they survived - they had a roof over their heads, were able to pay their essential bills, carry on eating and basically still live like human beings.

Are we literally saying that's the line now, that your average decent working person should be grateful they're not homeless because of a pandemic completely outside of their control, because the government chucked them a few quid and massively further enriched the already hugely wealthy in the process?

The rich didn't get directly paid the furlough money, but they ended up with nearly all of it, because they own pretty much everything that everyone relies on to live.

 

[interlog]

They 'benefitted' insofar as they survived - they had a roof over their heads, were able to pay their essential bills, carry on eating and basically still live like human beings.

Are we literally saying that's the line now, that your average decent working person should be grateful they're not homeless because of a pandemic completely outside of their control, because the government chucked them a few quid and massively further enriched the already hugely wealthy in the process?

The rich didn't get directly paid the furlough money, but they ended up with nearly all of it, because they own pretty much everything that everyone relies on to live.

No, what we're saying is that they should contribute too towards the debt that was created because the alternative would have been anarchy. What is wrong with that?