The United Kingdom and the Death of Boris Johnson as we know it.

[Sheaf Saint]

 

[Plastic]

On 23/07/2022 at 14:04, AlexLaw76 said:

That is our system.  Works when other parties (like in 1997) win under the same rules

Christ I wish it was 1997 

On 26/07/2022 at 12:19, farawaysaint said:

Dear God Truss is going to be PM… What on earth has happened to politics in the UK?

She looks like a tortoise in a wig

[buctootim]

[buctootim]

[badgerx16]

Mad Nad is at it again; the Minister for Culture Media and Sport said that the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham are the biggest event in the UK since the 2012 Olympics, which has pissed off Glasgow, which hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

which has pissed off Glasgow, 

You make out that’s a bad thing? 

[badgerx16]

37 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You make out that’s a bad thing? 

"Pissed off" not "pissed up" 😉

[rooney]

7 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Mad Nad is at it again; the Minister for Culture Media and Sport said that the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham are the biggest event in the UK since the 2012 Olympics, which has pissed off Glasgow, which hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2014.

Hang on. She had better step up before she appears on Mastermind.

[Lord Duckhunter]

28 minutes ago, rooney said:

Hang on. She had better step up before she appears on Mastermind.

Fuck me she can’t be worse than Lammy. According to him Henry VII succeeded Henry VIIl. Marie Antoinette won the Nobel prize for physics in 1903, and Red Leicester is the Blue cheese that traditionally  accompanies port.  

 

 

[badgerx16]

20 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fuck me she can’t be worse than Lammy. According to him Henry VII succeeded Henry VIIl. Marie Antoinette won the Nobel prize for physics in 1903, and Red Leicester is the Blue cheese that traditionally  accompanies port.  

 

 

I despair for our democracy when it becomes a choice between Nad and Lammy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I despair for our democracy when it becomes a choice between Nad and Lammy.

 

[badgerx16]

Maybe there should be a minimum IQ rating before somebody can stand as an MP.

[rallyboy]

Lammy and Abbot are often all over the place but let's be realistic here, Nadine Dorries has made more drunken blunders and chaotic gaffes in the last six weeks than those two have between them in a decade.

Dorries doesn't tend to get the same amount of abuse in the media or online - I often wonder why.

[whelk]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/29/boris-johnson-lords-cronies-legitimising-bribery
 

either abolish the HofL or put a bullet in Johnson’s head. Prefer the latter

[Lord Duckhunter]

40 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

 

Dorries doesn't tend to get the same amount of abuse in the media or online - I often wonder why.

Yes she does.
 

She takes dogs abuse online from sneering arrogant clever dicks. You know, people like you.

 

[rallyboy]

3 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yes she does.
 

She takes dogs abuse online from sneering arrogant clever dicks. You know, people like you.

 

Classy.

Is she playing a blinder? 🤣

[Whitey Grandad]

24 minutes ago, whelk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/29/boris-johnson-lords-cronies-legitimising-bribery
 

either abolish the HofL or put a bullet in Johnson’s head. Prefer the latter

Can I be greedy and want both?

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 minutes ago, rallyboy said:

Classy.

Is she playing a blinder? 🤣

She’s a chump, like Abbott, Lammy and a few others. Difference is your definition of a abuse only applies to a leftie, it’s legitimate criticism when abusing a Tory. 
 

Fuck me, there’s nothing wrong not knowing who succeeded Henry VIII but to guess Henry VII is fuckwittery beyond the call of duty.

Edited 29 July, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[revolution saint]

21 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yes she does.
 

She takes dogs abuse online from sneering arrogant clever dicks. You know, people like you.

 

Never had you down as such a snowflake.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

Never had you down as such a snowflake.

Doesn’t bother me. Just laughable that people think she doesn’t get the same level of abuse Lammy gets. 

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She’s a chump, like Abbott, Lammy and a few others. Difference is your definition of a abuse only applies to a leftie, it’s legitimate criticism when abusing a Tory. 
 

Fuck me, there’s nothing wrong not knowing who succeeded Henry VIII but to guess Henry VII is fuckwittery beyond the call of duty.

Complete bollocks... or as you would say pony.

It doesn't really matter that Lammy doesn't know who succeeded Henry VIII. He is not in Government and if he was I cannot conceive of any post which he may have which would require a knowledge of Tudor monarchs.

Mad Nad is the Cabinet minister responsible for Sport. She clearly knows fuck all about it - despite the presence of civil servants who could help her out. Either she is too thick to understand what she is told or she is too lazy to read her brief. Either way it does not convince me that the responsibility for Sport in the cabinet is in safe hands 

If you really cannot see the importance of a Cabinet minister not knowing their subject you are either more bigoted or more stupid than I hitherto thought.

 

Edited 29 July, 2022 by Tamesaint

[whelk]

23 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Complete bollocks... or as you would say pony.

It doesn't really matter that Lammy doesn't know who succeeded Henry VIII. He is not in Government and if he was I cannot conceive of any post which he may have which would require a knowledge of Tudor monarchs.

Mad Nad is the Cabinet minister responsible for Sport. She clearly knows fuck all about it - despite the presence of civil servants who could help her out. Either she is too thick to understand what she is told or she is too lazy to read her brief. Either way it does not convince me that the responsibility for Sport in the cabinet is in safe hands 

If you really cannot see the importance of a Cabinet minister not knowing their subject you are either more bigoted or more stupid than I hitherto thought.

 

You left out ‘too drunk’. She epitomises this govt in her ineptness. 
 

Lammy is shit too IMO but not at her spectacular shakey head level

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

You left out ‘too drunk’. She epitomises this govt in her ineptness. 
 

Lammy is shit too IMO but not at her spectacular shakey head level

I think there’s also a case for including just plain nasty. 

Edited 29 July, 2022 by revolution saint

[Lord Duckhunter]

10 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Complete bollocks... or as you would say pony.

It doesn't really matter that Lammy doesn't know who succeeded Henry VIII. He is not in Government and if he was I cannot conceive of any post which he may have which would require a knowledge of Tudor monarchs.

Mad Nad is the Cabinet minister responsible for Sport. She clearly knows fuck all about it - despite the presence of civil servants who could help her out. Either she is too thick to understand what she is told or she is too lazy to read her brief. Either way it does not convince me that the responsibility for Sport in the cabinet is in safe hands 

If you really cannot see the importance of a Cabinet minister not knowing their subject you are either more bigoted or more stupid than I hitherto thought.

 

If it was down to people like you, Lammy would be a cabinet minister. Luckily there was enough sensible normal people voting in 2019 to ensure he isn’t. 
 

 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[Tamesaint]

53 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was down to people like you, Lammy would be a cabinet minister. Luckily there was enough sensible normal people voting in 2019 to ensure he isn’t. 
 

 

So you are even more ignorant and bigoted than I thought.

Do you think that "normal, sensible" sports enthusiasts love the fact that  Mad Nad is responsible for sport in this Government?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

So you are even more ignorant and bigoted than I thought.

Do you think that "normal, sensible" sports enthusiasts love the fact that  Mad Nad is responsible for sport in this Government?

I’d question whether we need anyone, we certainly don’t need a whole department of culture and sport. There’s people in the Lords far more qualified to “drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad”, which is its  pony mission statement. 

[revolution saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

If it was down to people like you, Lammy would be a cabinet minister. Luckily there was enough sensible normal people voting in 2019 to ensure he isn’t. 
 

 

That’s a pony argument. The only people who directly elected either Lammy or Dories were people within their constituencies, are the people in Tottenham not sensible and normal then?

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, revolution saint said:

That’s a pony argument. The only people who directly elected either Lammy or Dories were people within their constituencies, are the people in Tottenham not sensible and normal then?

No, most clearly aren’t 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

The problem we have now is that it isn’t just the odd individual who is isn’t that bright and is incompetent (and nasty) it is the current sitting PM and pretty much all of his cabinet. As for the Henry V111 question, I don’t know many people who could answer that and hazarding a guess at Henry V11 is perfectly reasonable if you don’t know the answer. Fortunately a light hearted quiz show has nothing to do with running the country and understanding your brief, which few cabinet misters seem to do. People like Lammy and Abbott have been getting dogs abuse for years, not just recently like Nad and her chums, and we all know why. I think that poor old Duckie is rattled. For years it was the preserve of the Right to make fun of those whose politics are left of centre, fuelled by the Right wing media. Now the shoe is on the other foot and we have a bunch of useless, and quite often clueless individuals in a Tory government who get away with the hammering they would get from the mainstream media only because they are Tories. Fortunately there are now plenty of normal, decent people who can see what is going on and hopefully many of these MPs will be looking for a new job in a couple of years time.

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As for the Henry V111 question, I don’t know many people who could answer that and hazarding a guess at Henry V11 is perfectly reasonable.....

Oh, come on Soggy. Who, regardless of the context of the question, would think edition #7 came after edition #8 ?

[revolution saint]

15 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

No, most clearly aren’t 

Fair to say that the majority of the country aren't that normal and sensible for electing this shower of shite then?  Oh and Lammy wasn't in the shadow cabinet in 2019.

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Oh, come on Soggy. Who, regardless of the context of the question, would think edition #7 came after edition #8 ?

Personally, I preferred the answer about the Nobel prize winning Marie Antoinette. Her work on radiation has certainly changed the fight against cancer. As for that “let them eat cake” bitch Marie Curie, she was a fucking Tory. 
 

see that’s the funny thing, The Waitrose shoppers were taking the piss about Nadine going on Mastermind, but when there’s a video of a leftie actually making a cock of himself on the show, it’s ok, it’s not funny, it doesn’t matter because he’s not “culture secretary “. 😂

[Tamesaint]

14 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Personally, I preferred the answer about the Nobel prize winning Marie Antoinette. Her work on radiation has certainly changed the fight against cancer. As for that “let them eat cake” bitch Marie Curie, she was a fucking Tory. 
 

see that’s the funny thing, The Waitrose shoppers were taking the piss about Nadine going on Mastermind, but when there’s a video of a leftie actually making a cock of himself on the show, it’s ok, it’s not funny, it doesn’t matter because he’s not “culture secretary “. 😂

Are Waitrose shoppers now the new enemy?

[whelk]

34 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Are Waitrose shoppers now the new enemy?

I imagine he sees it as quite aspirational. I see him as a Rab C Nesbit character who hasn’t had sex for 20 years. Not your Waitrose target shopper

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Are Waitrose shoppers now the new enemy?

Yep, tedious ridiculous Waitrose customers 
 

 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[Sheaf Saint]

24 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yep, tedious ridiculous Waitrose customers 
 

 

Never thought I would see the day you would be in agreement with Owen Jones Ducky 🤨

[aintforever]

Starmer is doing fine, the party can't position itself in the centre left without annoy those on the hard left.

Fact is, come the GE, pretty much everyone in favour of the strikes will all vote Labour anyway no matter how much they moan about Starmer now.

[buctootim]

he Tories have always borrowed more than Labour, and always repaid less: they are the party of big deficit spending

Posted on June 24 2021

It is often suggested that Labour is profligate and the Tories are the naturally ‘safe pair of hands’ when it comes to running the economy. The Tories, it is presumed, do not borrow as much as Labour. This is a hypothesis I have tested before. I thought it time to update to the end of the 2020/21 financial year.

The analysis that follows is based on government borrowing as reported by the House of Commons Library and other data supplied by the Office for Budget Responsibility.It covers years since 1946, which is the entire post-war period.

The government in office was decided by who was at the end of a financial year.

I then calculated the total net borrowing in Labour and Conservative years and averaged them by the number of years in office. All figures are stated billions of pounds in all the tables that follow and in this case are in original values i.e. in the prices of the periods when they actually occurred:

The Conservatives borrowed more, not just absolutely (which is unsurprising as they had more years in office), but on average.

This, though, is a bit unfair: the value of money changes over time. So I restated all borrowing in 2021 prices to eliminate the bias this gives rise to. This resulted in the following table:

In current prices the Conservatives still borrowed more (much more) overall, and on average, by a long way.

So then I speculated that this may be distorted by events since 2008. That is what the Conservatives would claim, after all: they would say that they have spent eleven years clearing up Labour's mess. So I took those years out of account and looked at the first 62 years of the sample. I did this in 2021 prices to ensure I was applying a level playing field by eliminating inflation from consideration:

The Conservatives still borrowed more, after all, although it was a close run thing.

Then I speculated that this might be because Labour are good Keynesians: maybe they repaid national debt more often than the Conservatives. Or, to put it another way, they actually repaired the roof when the sun was shining. This is the data in terms of number of years:

Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years.

But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. This is the data in both original and current prices:

Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out: it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made.

So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest.

First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that.

And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average.

The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference.

Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.

For those interested, this is the overall summary table: the pattern in the right-hand column is really quite surprising:

The pattern is very apparent. But so too is something else, and that is that no government since 1945 has really known how to cut spending enough to ever really cut the national debt. National debt repayments amount to about 4% of total borrowing in this period. That is completely insignificant and appropriate: the economy needs the money that the government injects into it by deficit spending to function.

However, there are increasing noises being made about austerity and the need to 'repay the debt', even though it is very apparent that politicians have no clue how to do this, and have no track record in doing so. Why are they in that case claiming the need to do something that has never happened, and likely never will? What is this wholly unnecessary distraction about? And why do we need to suffer austerity in the forlorn hope that debt might be repaid when it is apparent that not doing so has not caused harm, but the attempt to make repayment has?

Surely it is time for some politicians to call this out and say the claim that debt repayment is a priority is simply wrong, because the evidence shows that to be the case.

Data sources

The basic data on borrowing came from the House of Commons Library. This data is updated over time: figures will differ from earlier versions of this blog.

All other data comes from the Office for Budget Responsibility using the May 2021 data set.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/24/the-tories-have-always-borrowed-more-than-labour-and-always-repaid-less-they-are-the-party-of-big-deficit-spending/ 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by buctootim

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Personally, I preferred the answer about the Nobel prize winning Marie Antoinette. Her work on radiation has certainly changed the fight against cancer. As for that “let them eat cake” bitch Marie Curie, she was a fucking Tory. 
 

see that’s the funny thing, The Waitrose shoppers were taking the piss about Nadine going on Mastermind, but when there’s a video of a leftie actually making a cock of himself on the show, it’s ok, it’s not funny, it doesn’t matter because he’s not “culture secretary “. 😂

It was funny. It is always funny when people get guesses wrong big time on silly quiz shows. It is completely different when people in power don’t have a clue about things they should have a clue about. I guess you didn’t bat an eye when the person responsible for selling off Channel 4 didn’t have a clue about how it was funded?

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Oh, come on Soggy. Who, regardless of the context of the question, would think edition #7 came after edition #8 ?

Oh, I didn’t see it. Yes, that is not great (and would have been correct the other way round 😂)

Edited 30 July, 2022 by sadoldgit
Add

[farawaysaint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

he Tories have always borrowed more than Labour, and always repaid less: they are the party of big deficit spending

Posted on June 24 2021

It is often suggested that Labour is profligate and the Tories are the naturally ‘safe pair of hands’ when it comes to running the economy. The Tories, it is presumed, do not borrow as much as Labour. This is a hypothesis I have tested before. I thought it time to update to the end of the 2020/21 financial year.

The analysis that follows is based on government borrowing as reported by the House of Commons Library and other data supplied by the Office for Budget Responsibility.It covers years since 1946, which is the entire post-war period.

The government in office was decided by who was at the end of a financial year.

I then calculated the total net borrowing in Labour and Conservative years and averaged them by the number of years in office. All figures are stated billions of pounds in all the tables that follow and in this case are in original values i.e. in the prices of the periods when they actually occurred:

The Conservatives borrowed more, not just absolutely (which is unsurprising as they had more years in office), but on average.

This, though, is a bit unfair: the value of money changes over time. So I restated all borrowing in 2021 prices to eliminate the bias this gives rise to. This resulted in the following table:

In current prices the Conservatives still borrowed more (much more) overall, and on average, by a long way.

So then I speculated that this may be distorted by events since 2008. That is what the Conservatives would claim, after all: they would say that they have spent eleven years clearing up Labour's mess. So I took those years out of account and looked at the first 62 years of the sample. I did this in 2021 prices to ensure I was applying a level playing field by eliminating inflation from consideration:

The Conservatives still borrowed more, after all, although it was a close run thing.

Then I speculated that this might be because Labour are good Keynesians: maybe they repaid national debt more often than the Conservatives. Or, to put it another way, they actually repaired the roof when the sun was shining. This is the data in terms of number of years:

Labour do walk the talk: they repay national debt much more often in absolute and percentage terms than the Conservatives. In fact, one in four Labour years saw debt repaid. That was true in less than one in ten Conservative years.

But maybe the Conservatives repaid more. I checked that. This is the data in both original and current prices:

Labour not only repaid more often, it turns out: it also repaid much more in total and on average during each year when repayment was made.

So what do we learn? Two essential things, I suggest.

First, Labour borrows less than the Conservatives. The data shows that.

And second, Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives and has always repaid more debt, on average.

The trend does not vary however you do the data. I have tried time lagging it for example: it makes no difference.

Or, to put it another way, the Conservatives are the party of high UK borrowing and low debt repayment contrary to all popular belief.

For those interested, this is the overall summary table: the pattern in the right-hand column is really quite surprising:

The pattern is very apparent. But so too is something else, and that is that no government since 1945 has really known how to cut spending enough to ever really cut the national debt. National debt repayments amount to about 4% of total borrowing in this period. That is completely insignificant and appropriate: the economy needs the money that the government injects into it by deficit spending to function.

However, there are increasing noises being made about austerity and the need to 'repay the debt', even though it is very apparent that politicians have no clue how to do this, and have no track record in doing so. Why are they in that case claiming the need to do something that has never happened, and likely never will? What is this wholly unnecessary distraction about? And why do we need to suffer austerity in the forlorn hope that debt might be repaid when it is apparent that not doing so has not caused harm, but the attempt to make repayment has?

Surely it is time for some politicians to call this out and say the claim that debt repayment is a priority is simply wrong, because the evidence shows that to be the case.

Data sources

The basic data on borrowing came from the House of Commons Library. This data is updated over time: figures will differ from earlier versions of this blog.

All other data comes from the Office for Budget Responsibility using the May 2021 data set.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/24/the-tories-have-always-borrowed-more-than-labour-and-always-repaid-less-they-are-the-party-of-big-deficit-spending/ 

This does not seem very conservative. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Oh, I didn’t see it. Yes, that is not great 

So you posted about it & defended him, without seeing it? 
 

Classic Soggy 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[Tamesaint]

Ducky of course would never go supermarket shopping as that is chick's work  but I do wonder where his "bird" is allowed to shop.

Waitrose is full of "tedious, ridiculous customers" so clearly best avoided.

Aldi is German.  Shopping there would mean supporting the EU. Don't forget 2 world wars and a world cup too 

Lidl - see Aldi.

Sainsbury's- David Salisbury was a real pinko and a member of the Labour government so no way can she shop there.

Tesco - founded by a Jew - and you know what means.....

Co -op - don't even start to consider it.

I suppose Asda is ok with the Archie Norman connection but he is a bit of a pinko.

Ensuring that Ducky gets his nutrition must be very difficult for his bird.

😁😁😁😁

 

Edited 30 July, 2022 by Tamesaint

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Tamesaint said:

Ducky of course would never go supermarket shopping as that is chick's work  but I do wonder where his "bird" is allowed to shop.

Waitrose is full of "tedious, ridiculous customers" so clearly best avoided.

Aldi is German.  Shopping there would mean supporting the EU. Don't forget 2 world wars and a world cup too 

Lidl - see Aldi.

Sainsbury's- David Salisbury was a real pinko and a member of the Labour government so no way can she shop there.

Tesco - founded by a Jew - and you know what means.....

Co -op - don't even start to consider it.

I suppose Asda is ok with the Archie Norman connection but he is a bit of a pinko.

Ensuring that Ducky gets his nutrition must be very difficult for his bird.

😁😁😁😁

 

Duckie doesn't have a 'bird', he has a Snapdragon.

[sadoldgit]

16 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So you posted about it & defended him, without seeing it? 
 

Classic Soggy 

I was making the point that there is a difference between getting something wrong on a TV quiz show and getting something wrong in your job. I didn’t have to see it to make that point. But again you twist something to suit your own agenda. Classic Ducky. 🦆

[Weston Super Saint]

41 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I was making the point that there is a difference between getting something wrong on a TV quiz show and getting something wrong in your job. I didn’t have to see it to make that point. But again you twist something to suit your own agenda. Classic Ducky. 🦆

Yeah, like not prosecuting Jimmy Saville.

[badgerx16]

38 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yeah, like not prosecuting Jimmy Saville.

Which CPS reviewing lawyer made that decision, and therefore "got something wrong in their job" ?

Edited 31 July, 2022 by badgerx16

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yeah, like not prosecuting Jimmy Saville.

Trolling twat alert.

Edited 31 July, 2022 by Tamesaint

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Which CPS reviewing lawyer made that decision, and therefore "got something wrong in their job" ?

Didn't Walter Soggy Mitty once mansplain to us how he was a super senior manager at the CPS at around the time that Saville wasn't prosecuted?  If that's the case, I'd go with Soggy as the someone who 'got something wrong in their job'.

[Weston Super Saint]

22 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Trolling twat alert.

Bless.