Fan The Flames Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 11 hours ago, trousers said: Can this "ignore what they did or said in the past" philosophy be applied to all politicians or just the ones you support...? (Asking for someone who gives a toss about these futile political 'debates') No one is saying that, the point is simply, just because you served under a leader doesn't mean you are completely aligned to their politics. Just like Hunt isn't a Trussite. Or is he? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 10 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: Starmer made a point of focusing on the Conservatives history in the first debate. That you couldn't ignore it. Heavens forbid we call them, or supporters, hypocrites, by not applying it to them. No one is saying that either. It's politics, they spend more time having a go at the opposition then they do pitching their own ideas, it's how it works. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexLaw76 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 10 hours ago, revolution saint said: Have the Tories got anything other than the fabricated tax rises of Labour? Fuck me it’s tedious and coming from a party that’s given us the highest tax burden we’ve ever had, promised a high wage economy and then protested against wage increases, it’s hypocritical. Paraphrasing Alexie Sayle, Least you know where you are with the Tories, yeah, you’re fucked. Do you think the tax take will rise or fall in the next parliament? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 14 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said: Do you think the tax take will rise or fall in the next parliament? Rise. It has to unless we want to borrow even more and / or see fucked public services get worse. It seems clear that we can expect a revamp to council tax and all be paying more. Corporation tax will rise, and I'd imagine that dividend tax rates and bandings will be tweaked. Not sure where else they can easily go, hopefully not fuel duty or tax relief on pensions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 19 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said: Do you think the tax take will rise or fall in the next parliament? It’ll rise for a hefty % of the population whoever gets in, that’s a fact, even if Sunak pulled off a miracle or Farage the impossible because of fiscal drag over the last few years pulling more people into higher bands especially. And no government with the dreadful state the economy and public finances can afford to raise thresholds for the next 3-4 years at very best. The IFS have been saying this for months. Edited June 19 by Gloucester Saint 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 hours ago, Fan The Flames said: Yes it's politics, your point is what? That your 'mansplaining' that 'they all do, mate' wasn't really necessary with politicians being politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 9 minutes ago, egg said: Rise. It has to unless we want to borrow even more and / or see fucked public services get worse. It seems clear that we can expect a revamp to council tax and all be paying more. Corporation tax will rise, and I'd imagine that dividend tax rates and bandings will be tweaked. Not sure where else they can easily go, hopefully not fuel duty or tax relief on pensions. Hang on, when I mentioned last week that it would rise, I was told the extra money would come from a booming economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Hang on, when I mentioned last week that it would rise, I was told the extra money would come from a booming economy. That's nice. Overall tax revenue will rise. It has to. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 minutes ago, egg said: That's nice. Overall tax revenue will rise. It has to. Would be nice if they were honest and said so, indicating which taxes and when. Assuming they know of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 32 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: That your 'mansplaining' that 'they all do, mate' wasn't really necessary with politicians being politicians. Mansplaining, that's a bit dramatic Weston. You're too woke. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said: Would be nice if they were honest and said so, indicating which taxes and when. Assuming they know of course. I think it's safe to assume that unless a specific tax rise has been ruled out, that we can expect that particular tax to rise or be meddled with (i.e. a replacement to council tax as we know it). Whilst I agree that transparency would be good, labour have this in the bag and I can understand them playing it safe and keeping quiet on the bad stuff. I think that we all need to think though, and read between lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said: Do you think the tax take will rise or fall in the next parliament? It will rise even if nothing happens at all because of what the Conservatives have (not) done on the tax bands/personal allowances. These changes when they take effect will be pounced on by the client RW press as proof that Labour were lying and "they" have put your taxes up. And obviously it will work an absolute treat. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Not much talk of our local representatives, I get it's starmer vs sunak, but in soton test, the difference in quality between con and lab candidates is crazy, I can't imagine how anyone could vote for the con candidate ahead of labour here. And that's reflected in the odds [lab 1-40]. And reform have no chance here. How much of the decision is who we want representing us in the commons, and the local campaigns? Because ever since johnson purged all brexit critics from the Tories, the quality of conservative candidates has plummeted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 8 hours ago, whelk said: Bless these desperate cunts Same headlines every election. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 10 hours ago, whelk said: According to David Yelland the average age of a newspaper reader is 64. Dying breed thankfully. Their scare headlines are only working on old cunts who won’t be around for long Puzzles, innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, Fan The Flames said: No one is saying that either. It's politics, they spend more time having a go at the opposition then they do pitching their own ideas, it's how it works. I was picking up on "It really doesn’t matter. It was 5 years ago and has no bearing on what is happening now." That clearly indicates a view that the past doesn't matter. Which is the opposite of what Starmer himself said. A few further posts were also discussing scrutiny applying to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said: Hang on, when I mentioned last week that it would rise, I was told the extra money would come from a booming economy. 2 hours ago, egg said: That's nice. Overall tax revenue will rise. It has to. 2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said: Would be nice if they were honest and said so, indicating which taxes and when. Assuming they know of course. 2 hours ago, egg said: I think it's safe to assume that unless a specific tax rise has been ruled out, that we can expect that particular tax to rise or be meddled with (i.e. a replacement to council tax as we know it). Whilst I agree that transparency would be good, labour have this in the bag and I can understand them playing it safe and keeping quiet on the bad stuff. I think that we all need to think though, and read between lines. An interview I caught yesterday asked some questions on tax rises. The labour representative wouldn't be drawn, and then also indicated a growing economy would be picking up the difference. Like links to Corbyn, Labour will say as little as possible and get it over the line. And to be balanced, the Conservatives have kept very quiet too on rises to come. Like @Weston and @Egg say, it would be nice for some transparency/ honesty. Being lied to by omission, is just rather sad. Expecting something better from any of them seems pointless. Some of that is down to them knowing the impact of honesty on getting votes. Labour will have plenty to do, and every rise will be used as a giant stick by their opposition. Their own clock will be ticking as soon as they are in. It won't be long before they are deflecting their own record, blaming what they inherited. Internally, there is already pressure to do more. But it's not funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Left Back Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 I'll risk being accused of mansplaining (my least favourite modern mash-up word - it just doesn't flow). I think this thread is mixing up 'tax take' and 'tax burden' and confusing contributors. If I understand correctly...tax take (the amount of tax received by a government) going up would be a generally good thing as it would indicate economic health/growth/wealth creation. Tax burden going up (the amount each person/household/company pays in tax, often expressed as a % of income/revenue) is what the Conservatives have caused and what they predict Labour will exacerbate. It's the more divisive topic. At least this is my understanding. I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexLaw76 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 35 minutes ago, The Left Back said: I'll risk being accused of mansplaining (my least favourite modern mash-up word - it just doesn't flow). I think this thread is mixing up 'tax take' and 'tax burden' and confusing contributors. If I understand correctly...tax take (the amount of tax received by a government) going up would be a generally good thing as it would indicate economic health/growth/wealth creation. Tax burden going up (the amount each person/household/company pays in tax, often expressed as a % of income/revenue) is what the Conservatives have caused and what they predict Labour will exacerbate. It's the more divisive topic. At least this is my understanding. I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong. I think the amount of money printed/used to combat Covid and to supply Ukraine in fighting a un-winnable war will have been significant (at best the same) no matter who was in power. for all of the Truss madness, labour wanted a longer, harder, wilder lockdown, which would have cost a tremendous fortune. we are where we are, with the major parties in the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 16 hours ago, trousers said: Can this "ignore what they did or said in the past" philosophy be applied to all politicians or just the ones you support...? (Asking for someone who gives a toss about these futile political 'debates') Given that we are in the state we are in is because of the last 14 years of Tory miss government it would seem to be a tad foolish to ignore that fact. To try and crucify Keir Starmer because he tried to get his party elected 5 years ago pails into insignificance in comparison. Labour weren’t in power, the Tories were. I know the people who think that Socialism Is Dangerous will try and make some kind of argument that the two are comparable, but they really aren’t. Starmer and all parties are up for scrutiny, of course they are, but scrutinised them on the important issues, not something that has no relevance and has been plucked out of the air in a vain attempt to discredit someone because they have little to go on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 16 hours ago, hypochondriac said: Indeed. It's not like what a politician has done in the past has ever been a predictor of what they might do in the future or anything. That never happens... *waits for a post about something the tories have done. Kindly explain to us why Keir Starmer as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party working to get his party elected has anything to worry us about in what might happen in the future. Are you worried that he is going to bring Jeremy Corbyn back? It isn’t going to happen. He has moved Labour away from the far left, a good thing in your world surely? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 36 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said: I think the amount of money printed/used to combat Covid and to supply Ukraine in fighting a un-winnable war will have been significant (at best the same) no matter who was in power. for all of the Truss madness, labour wanted a longer, harder, wilder lockdown, which would have cost a tremendous fortune. we are where we are, with the major parties in the toilet. We are where we are because of the years of austerity thanks to Osbourne and Cameron. This was a political choice, not a necessity. It made us less able to deal with things like Covid and Ukraine’s justifiable defence against the Russian invasion, along with the negative economic effect of Brexit. This is down to one party. The Conservative Party. It would make sense to get them out and get someone in who would do their best to overturn this mess wouldn’t? And I don’t think that is Reform by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: Kindly explain to us why Keir Starmer as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party working to get his party elected has anything to worry us about in what might happen in the future. Are you worried that he is going to bring Jeremy Corbyn back? It isn’t going to happen. He has moved Labour away from the far left, a good thing in your world surely? The manifesto is as milquetoast as it comes. The concern - as with all parties to be fair - is about more extreme factions in the party and what they will be looking to do with things that are not in the manifesto. The fact that Starmer seems to flip and change his opinions based on what he thinks will get him elected is not imo a positive thing. Hopefully that won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: We are where we are because of the years of austerity thanks to Osbourne and Cameron. Did they introduce 'austerity' just because they wanted to (ideologically) or because they felt they had to (in order to deal with the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis)? (I'm not trying to make a party political point here, just interested in what the underlying motivation/driver might have been for 'austerity', even if, according to those with a different philosophy, it wasn't necessary) Edited June 19 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said: Do you think the tax take will rise or fall in the next parliament? Do you think there will ever be a boy that can swim faster than a shark? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 49 minutes ago, trousers said: Did they introduce 'austerity' just because they wanted to (ideologically) or because they felt they had to (in order to deal with the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis)? (I'm not trying to make a party political point here, just interested in what the underlying motivation/driver might have been for 'austerity', even if, according to those with a different philosophy, it wasn't necessary) Austerity was ideologically driven. It may have started as the least worst option to deal with a specific situation, but it became an ingrained part of the Tory realpolitik despite the evidence of the damage being done to Public services. Item #1 on each successive Tory budget was 'How far can we squeeze the Public sector ?' Edited June 19 by badgerx16 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, sadoldgit said: We are where we are because of the years of austerity thanks to Osbourne and Cameron. This was a political choice They didn’t have a majority, they needed Lib Dem’s to get anything done. You know them, the ones you’re “impressed “ with. What do you think about the impressive Ed Davey enabling austerity? That was a political choice as well. Edited June 19 by Lord Duckhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, badgerx16 said: Austerity was ideologically driven. It may have started as the least worst option to deal with a specific situation, but it became an ingrained part of the Tory realpolitik despite the evidence of the damage being done to Public services. Item #1 on each successive Tory budget was 'How far can we squeeze the Public sector ?' Cheers for the thoughts Badger - appreciated 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted June 19 Author Share Posted June 19 2 hours ago, hypochondriac said: The manifesto is as milquetoast as it comes. The concern - as with all parties to be fair - is about more extreme factions in the party and what they will be looking to do with things that are not in the manifesto. The fact that Starmer seems to flip and change his opinions based on what he thinks will get him elected is not imo a positive thing. Hopefully that won't happen. Why wouldn’t you do what you can to get yourself elected? The fact that he has made some unpopular decisions and flip flopped as you call it so far is because he doesn’t want to make promises he can’t keep and do things he feels the economy can afford without massive tax rises. Sounds good to me. Who knows what will happen but at least we know that we won’t get Brexit! Did anyone see that coming when they voted for Cameron? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 40 minutes ago, sadoldgit said: Why wouldn’t you do what you can to get yourself elected? Lol. Weren't you complaining about Nigel doing just that the other day? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 Anyone on here going to vote Reform? I struggle to comprehend anyone supporting the Tories but this lot are off the scale conspiro nuts who don’t have a clue. There should be an IQ and income level before you get the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 39 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Lol. Weren't you complaining about Nigel doing just that the other day? Ah but Nigel will simply "just give some people what they want to hear and they will swallow it hook, line and sinker." Discerning voters obviously would never fall for such things. When their party does it, it must be for excellent reasons, which of course they notice every time. People disagreed with = always bad People agreed with doing exactly the same thing = doing it for the right reasons. Well done them for playing the system. Stunning lack of self awareness with some people. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Holmes_and_Watson said: Ah but Nigel will simply "just give some people what they want to hear and they will swallow it hook, line and sinker." Discerning voters obviously would never fall for such things. When their party does it, it must be for excellent reasons, which of course they notice every time. People disagreed with = always bad People agreed with doing exactly the same thing = doing it for the right reasons. Well done them for playing the system. Stunning lack of self awareness with some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 28 minutes ago, whelk said: Anyone on here going to vote Reform? I struggle to comprehend anyone supporting the Tories but this lot are off the scale conspiro nuts who don’t have a clue. There should be an IQ and income level before you get the vote. How did slagging off the thickos in society work during the Brexit campaign...? It's almost as if the more the thickos are mocked by the clever people, the more likely they are to vote for the very parties that the clever people slag off... Might be a new verse for Alanis Morrisette in that somewhere.... Edited June 19 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 26 minutes ago, whelk said: Anyone on here going to vote Reform? I struggle to comprehend anyone supporting the Tories but this lot are off the scale conspiro nuts who don’t have a clue. There should be an IQ and income level before you get the vote. I reckon there's one or two candidates on here. No, no and never for me. Some people's reasons for voting are mental. I know benefit dependent people who'll vote Tory cos their parents do, and know a bloke with a Czech missus and half Czech kids who voted Brexit and Ukip and can't explain why. There are some proper daft cunts out there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, trousers said: How did slagging off the thickos in society work during the Brexit campaign...? It's almost as if the more the thickos are mocked by the clever people, the more likely they are to vote for the very parties that the clever people slag off... Might be a new verse for Alanis Morrisette in that somewhere.... that’s my point - thick twats swallow any bollocks and vote for it and fuck my kids future with Brexit. Some twat in Stoke fed up with the Poles has led to net migration of 700k per year because they are too stupid to spot a charlatan. Of course was intended tongue in cheek but in social media age gullible fuckers are in their millions and democracy is broken in many ways as lies multiply in echo chambers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 6 minutes ago, egg said: I reckon there's one or two candidates on here. No, no and never for me. Some people's reasons for voting are mental. I know benefit dependent people who'll vote Tory cos their parents do, and know a bloke with a Czech missus and half Czech kids who voted Brexit and Ukip and can't explain why. There are some proper daft cunts out there. i voted for Brexit because i hate my kids more than foreigners. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said: They didn’t have a majority, they needed Lib Dem’s to get anything done. You know them, the ones you’re “impressed “ with. What do you think about the impressive Ed Davey enabling austerity? That was a political choice as well. The Lib Dems reigned them in - austerity would have been a hell of a lot worse with the Tories having free reign. The main mistake the Lib Dems made in the coalition was getting swept along with tuition fees. Daft of them, but it's a hell of a lot easier to forgive the Lib Dems for that than forgive the Tories for the mess they've served up which has left us royally fucked. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 31 minutes ago, whelk said: Anyone on here going to vote Reform? I struggle to comprehend anyone supporting the Tories but this lot are off the scale conspiro nuts who don’t have a clue. There should be an IQ and income level before you get the vote. I'd be surprised if I looked at their manifesto, and didn't find things I agreed with. Much the same as I find with everyone else's manifesto. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't offer some reach from their perceived position. The devil is how they go about it, what I'd actually be allowing in and weighing it with other policies that I'm very much against. Again, just the same as the others. That's what I've found in the last couple of elections anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 minute ago, Turkish said: i voted for Brexit because i hate my kids more than foreigners. You live up north it’s expected 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 2 minutes ago, whelk said: You live up north it’s expected Gerry from Stoke agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 13 minutes ago, whelk said: that’s my point - thick twats swallow any bollocks and vote for it and fuck my kids future with Brexit. Some twat in Stoke fed up with the Poles has led to net migration of 700k per year because they are too stupid to spot a charlatan. Of course was intended tongue in cheek but in social media age gullible fuckers are in their millions and democracy is broken in many ways as lies multiply in echo chambers I guess my point was, how does clever people (like you and I) slagging off the thickos help convince them to vote for someone else? My theory is that being continuously slagged off actually makes them more likely to stick with their "stupid" voting intentions than not. In other words, what does slagging them off (on an internet football forum or elsewhere) actually achieve? Edited June 19 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, trousers said: I guess my point was, how does clever people (like you and I) slagging off the thickos help convince them to vote for someone else? My theory is that being continuously slagged off actually makes them more likely to stick with their "stupid" voting intentions than not. In other words, what does slagging them off (on an internet football forum or elsewhere) actually achieve? Some might look at responses which demonise anyone not in full agreement, as a bit thick. But that can't be right, because the side doing the demonising is so much more intelligent. The most vocal keep telling us so anyway. 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 (edited) 11 minutes ago, trousers said: I guess my point was, how does clever people (like you and I) slagging off the thickos help convince them to vote for someone else? My theory is that being continuously slagged off actually makes them more likely to stick with their "stupid" voting intentions than not. In other words, what does slagging them off (on an internet football forum or elsewhere) actually achieve? The good thing is that there are no thickos on Saintsweb so we are in a safe place And yes see Trump as evidence, I will reopen your mines……hooray, I will stop imports and reopen your factories…..hoorah, I I will build a wall, an invisible one you can’t see, to stop migrants. Don’t let the experts tell you I am full of shit and definitely don’t look at my last presidency as evidence. And buy my fucking hats I’m your man on your side……,U S A U S A. And don’t let the Democrats tell you that Putin had whores piss on my face and my cock is shaped like a tiny mushroom. yes there are the alienated and disenfranchised who want some optimism and have been ignored but these lying cunts are so obvious to someone who can at very least reference past promises that have been broken. See cult leaders who predict end of world and then correct to another prediction and their programmed sheep just swallow again. Edited June 19 by whelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 4 minutes ago, whelk said: The good thing is that there are no thickos on Saintsweb so we are in a safe place I think you've called everyone on Saintsweb a thick cunt at some point or another 😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes_and_Watson Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 7 minutes ago, whelk said: The good thing is that there are no thickos on Saintsweb so we are in a safe place And yes see Trump as evidence, I will reopen your mines……hooray, I will stop imports and reopen your factories…..hoorah, I I will build a wall, an invisible one you can’t see, to stop migrants. Don’t let the experts tell you I am full of shit and definitely don’t look at my last presidency as evidence. And buy my fucking hats I’m your man on your side……,U S A U S A. And don’t let the Democrats tell you that Putin had whores piss on my face and my cock is shaped like a tiny mushroom. yes there are the alienated and disenfranchised who want some optimism and have been ignored but these lying cunts are so obvious to someone who can at very least reference past promises that have been broken. See cult leaders who predict end of world and then correct to another prediction and their programmed sheep just swallow again. If I was the breadwinner, and worked in a mine or a factory or similar, Trump has just directly connected to the well-being of my family and its future, in the above example. His personality, immigration, closeness with Putin and everything else may just have to take a back seat, for a while. All the democrats had to do was elect someone even slightly relatable (ruling out Clinton) and not at death's door (I've no idea how Biden keeps going) as their candidate. Someone willing to leverage USA's strength to benefit as many of its citizens as possible. Instead, there's been no self awareness, no review of just how necessary or corrupt it's systems are, and lots of abuse aimed at the other side. That Trump is capable of running anyone close, is a sign of how much the Democrats have failed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 25 minutes ago, revolution saint said: I think you've called everyone on Saintsweb a thick cunt at some point or another 😉 It is obviously a sign of affection. I look on it like CB Fry’s “Jesus wept” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 33 minutes ago, revolution saint said: I think you've called everyone on Saintsweb a thick cunt at some point or another 😉 I've only had it a few times. Had a half wit though which felt quite special. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, egg said: The Lib Dems reigned them in - austerity would have been a hell of a lot worse with the Tories having free reign. The main mistake the Lib Dems made in the coalition was getting swept along with tuition fees. Daft of them, but it's a hell of a lot easier to forgive the Lib Dems for that than forgive the Tories for the mess they've served up which has left us royally fucked. That’s a bit generous. They would have gone along with anything to get their feet under the cabinet table. Osborne & Cameron wouldn’t have gone much further even with a majority, they were closer to the Orange book Liberals than they were to the Tory membership. Personally, I supported that period of mild austerity, but if it was as wicked as some claim, the Lib Dems could have stopped it, but preferred the trappings of office. What’s worse, implementing a policy because you believe it to be right, or doing it because it’ll get you cabinet places. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted June 19 Share Posted June 19 1 hour ago, Turkish said: Gerry from Stoke agrees. Stoke is south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now