Westminster Politics

Eyepopper

Lowering the tone since 2006
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
66,935
Should have bust out a stone cold stunner right here:

I've outlived Churchill, I've outlived Thatcher, and I've outlived Johnson, and you know what, I'll outlive you you vapid cnut.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,341
Location
bin
I've outlived Churchill, I've outlived Thatcher, and I've outlived Johnson, and you know what, I'll outlive you you vapid cnut.
Well I don't understand politics much but what I do know is *insert whatever headline I saw on the Daily Mail this morning*
 

Bepi

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
3,875
Location
Italy
Supports
Juventus
Meloni is a bit scarier than Truss. I know I'm scared of all that she represents.
Yeah, her true colors are darker than Truss’ for sure but she also seems less oblivious to the consequences (for her country, as Italy is still a weak link in the EU and heavily reliant on partners’ good will) of showing them in full force.
 

De Selby

Scottish
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,868
Location
Jive-Ass Honky
Supports
Guangzhou Pharmaceutical F.C.
I feel sorry for you lot in the UK. The grotesques you've had (and are about to have) in government are the worst I've seen in my lifetime. They're a vile, mendacious, sociopathic bunch who think nothing of the working class (they're tories, it comes naturally), or indeed most of the lower middle class. Dark times ahead.

Are there any tory supporters on here who can defend this lot? Genuine question.

They make the government in Ireland seem somewhat reasonable. And I say this as someone who fuc*ing loathes Ireland's government to the core.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,198
Nick Ferrari just basically said she is a smoker, drinker and could do with losing a few pounds so should she be the leading person for health. He admitted he is all those 3 too to make it seem less harsh
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,401
the idiots who voted in jezbollah as leader are what lead us to truss (johnson and may)
corbyn was only possible because of the 2008 crisis and the austerity imposed thereafter. it was that which led to corbyn. it was brexit which led to johnson. when something so niche that it was discussed seriously only within the most etonian and socialist of circles came to predominate the national debate, it was always going to lead to a nationalist version of that niche issue given the entire british state is predisposed to nationalist rhetoric above and beyond the socialist. especially because labour's base was split on the issue in a way the tory base was not, which led to a bleeding of certain labour voters in the north, or red wall, to the tory banner.

brexit was to britian what build the wall and maga were to america. symbolic issues which concealed the drivers at the base, entirely socioeconomic in nature.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,401
if sunak won, I was expecting a largely white male cabinet in the most important positions. as truss won, it was obvious they'd go as representational as possible in all the key positions. it's a bit like the way labour use streeting because he has an almost working class accent. it's symbolic politics. tokens of inclusivity to give a liberal veneer to an illiberal order, especially insofar as the home office goes.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,401
the 100bn is just going onto general government debt. for "government debt" read "public debt minus the mutli-millionaire class". so if it is as described, poor people are paying, again, for corporate failures and yet no sight of nationalization. that's insanity.

100bn where's the magic money tree now? also, when did the news-media, including the bbc, just become a form of tv marketing? sycophants peddling "news" like a used car salesman. "i'm here in some really personal fruit and veg shop to explain to the idiots why they need to support something they have no say in".

between this and track and trace the government will have spent as much money as corbyn outlined for an entire nationalization scheme, one which would have included the companies whose profits are now being artificially maintained. the difference is that corbyn, whatever you think of him, wanted to give the state back its public welfare. the tories want to give you dole and dress it up as liberal economics.
 
Last edited:

Longshanks

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
1,783
the 100bn is just going onto general government debt. for "government debt" read "public debt minus the mutli-millionaire class". so if it is as described, poor people are paying, again, for corporate failures and yet no sight of nationalization. that's insanity.

100bn where's the magic money tree now? also, when did the news-media, including the bbc, just become a form of tv marketing? sycophants peddling "news" like a used car salesman. "i'm here in some really personal fruit and veg shop to explain to the idiots why they need to support something they have no say in".

between this and track and trace the government will have spent as much money as corbyn outlined for an entire nationalization scheme, one which would have included the companies whose profits are now being artificially maintained. the difference is that corbyn, whatever you think of him, wanted to give the state back its public welfare. the tories want to give you dole and dress it up as liberal economics.
Nationalisation wouldn't of necceserely made much difference to the current energy crisis. The wholesale price of Gas would still be very high and we would still be far to reliant on it for electricity production meaning bill would still be going up.

The difference of course is that Corbyn would likely come up with an idea of taxing the rich and big corporate companies more to pay for a scheme to control how much the general public have to pay for it.

Whereas the tories are going to borrow to pay for it and then make the general public pay it back via more austerity and cuts and stealth taxes.
 

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
2,401
The difference of course is that Corbyn would likely come up with an idea of taxing the rich and big corporate companies more to pay for a scheme to control how much the general public have to pay for it.

Whereas the tories are going to borrow to pay for it and then make the general public pay it back via more austerity and cuts and stealth taxes.
the economy has crashed because of the neoliberalist project. in turn, the public must now be "given" the things it should, and once did, actually own. and it all goes into the public debt column. how much do you reckon the ruling class will be hit by these debt traps? i don't think they take account of the trillions of pounds hidden in tax havens. and even then so many billionaires and multi millionaires dodge the meagre share of tax they are expected to pay in the first instance.

the difference is corbyn would have advocated a social welfare initiative. the government is advocating a corporate welfare initiative. the public will get nothing from this longterm as it stands except an enormous amount of debt.

the problem is that energy companies and other key industries should never be allowed to become private property. it's an assault on reason and tells you all you need to know regarding what the richest think of you and us more generally that they even attempt to continue such actions.

we have a system in which the richer you become the less legitimate it is for your wealth and income to be taxed to help the majority of the same society. there are no real nationalists in government, only capitalists.
 

redcucumber

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2022
Messages
3,239
What a take, eh?
Little wonder we're stuck in a perpetual spiral of Tory doom, death and destruction with people thinking shit like that. Feels endless and it's depressing as feck. fecking using shite like 'Jezbelloh'. It's a disgrace.