• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Gutter Boy said:
I'm generally opposed to trade agreements (tariffs protect domestic producers from rampant globalism).

But I'm positive about working more with countries like Japan, Malaysia and Mexico. If we want to avoid America and China as much as possible, Asia-Pacific and South America are good places to be operating our trade policy.
Click to expand...
Tariffs just make everything worse for everyone.

One of the greatest political lies ever told is that people inside a tariff border are protected by it. All it means is that they pay more for everything, increasing inflation, dwindling their savings and making their products uncompetitive outside their borders.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Pesky M̶u̶s̶l̶ "cough cough" Christians

www.bbc.co.uk

Calls for Archbishop of York to resign over abuse case failings

Stephen Cottrell knew that a priest was banned from being alone with children, but the priest remained in post.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I’d recommend anyone interested to listen to the interview on Radio 4 Today’s programme this morning with the Bishop of Saudi Sportswashing Machine. She is the only bishop to have publicly called for Justine Welby to resign and now for Cottrell to resign. Extremely articulate but a lone voice amongst her peers.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I’d recommend anyone interested to listen to the interview on Radio 4 Today’s programme this morning with the Bishop of Saudi Sportswashing Machine. She is the only bishop to have publicly called for Justine Welby to resign and now for Cottrell to resign. Extremely articulate but a lone voice amongst her peers.
Click to expand...
Unreal that there is such a cover up to such a scale in this day and age. No wonder they have fought to keep women away if they have so much gumption and conviction with this stuff...fair play to her.
 
One of the fastest growing trade blocks, supposed to be bigger than EU by 2050 or something.

Taiwan wants to join, as does China, but they can fudge off.

Some others are looking to join too.

Is not what it is now, but what it will be.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Pesky M̶u̶s̶l̶ "cough cough" Christians

www.bbc.co.uk

Calls for Archbishop of York to resign over abuse case failings

Stephen Cottrell knew that a priest was banned from being alone with children, but the priest remained in post.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Exactly?

So why would we want 3rd world scum, wirh fudge all skills, come f*ck our kids, when we already have enough problems with home grown?

Of course I am not saying all, but as i pointed out earlier in the thread, those from North Africa, Middle east, sub-saharan africa are more likely to *struggle cuddle* than the local population.

So why make things worse?
 
Grays_1890 said:
Pesky M̶u̶s̶l̶ "cough cough" Christians

www.bbc.co.uk

Calls for Archbishop of York to resign over abuse case failings

Stephen Cottrell knew that a priest was banned from being alone with children, but the priest remained in post.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I was raised in the Catholic faith which has an awful history with sex abuse. But at can at least be discussed in public and debated and large efforts to confront its appalling history.

More then can be said for some, where the is no issue and it can not even be discussed.
 
markysimmo said:
Another lie/backtrack to add to the already massive list

https://twitter.com/x/status/1869030837305614582
Click to expand...
This is just reality hitting for Labour:
- They've given themselves this fiscal straightjacket of "rules" which gives them only £9 billion odd wriggle room. While £9 billion sounds a lot of money, it's loose change down the back of the sofa for a G7 country.
- They've then announced one of the most anti-growth budgets ever announced
- The economy is already starting to shrink and many of the policies they counted on to "raise" revenue are by most analysis actually going to cost money to implement, the latest one being inheritance tax reforms. This is because analysis is predicting that a huge amount of effort is going to be put in my people to try and avoid it and therefore to achieve the projected revenue they're going to have to spend more than the projected revenue uplifts in HMRC investigations and court fees....
- Inflation is starting to creep up again (you hit businesses with extra costs what do you think is going to happen - actually this stuff is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE)
- Where this leaves us is a fiscal gap (a "budget deficit") which won't be filled by borrowing under their fiscal rules.
- Therefore, as per Reeves response to questions over the weekend there will be no emergency budget revisions and if by the spring review they are not on track, they will look for "departmental efficiencies" to close the gap.
- I.e. we are facing self-imposed austerity (cuts to public spending).
 
Last edited:
Kompakted said:
This is just reality hitting for Labour:
- They've given themselves this fiscal straightjacket of "rules" which gives them only £9 billion odd wriggle room. While £9 billion sounds a lot of money, it's loose change down the back of the sofa for a G7 country.
- They've then announced one of the most anti-growth budgets ever announced
- The economy is already starting to shrink and many of the policies they counted on to "raise" revenue are by most analysis actually going to cost money to implement, the latest one being inheritance tax reforms. This is because analysis is predicting that a huge amount of effort is going to be put in my people to try and avoid it and therefore to achieve the projected revenue they're going to have to spend more than the projected revenue uplifts in HMRC investigations and court fees....
- Inflation is starting to creep up again (you hit businesses with extra costs what do you think is going to happen - actually this stuff is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE)
- Where this leaves us is a fiscal gap (a "budget deficit") which won't be filled by borrowing under their fiscal rules.
- Therefore, as per Reeves response to questions over the weekend there will be no emergency budget revisions and if by the spring review they are not on track, they will look for "departmental efficiencies" to close the gap.
- I.e. we are facing self-imposed austerity (cuts to public spending).
Click to expand...
Massive public spending cuts are the obvious answer to anyone who isn't kidding themselves about the state of the economy.

We've had little to no growth for years, a rapidly inflating population, a workforce that either doesn't want to work or wants to "work" from home and increased expectations of what the state can/will provide.

Public spending has increased year on year to the point where the tax burden is as large as after WWII. Yet people are calling it austerity because the amount spent per person appears to be shrinking.

There needs to be a massive reset on what people expect from the state, on the effort they think they can get away with putting in at work and on how much we can afford to pay immigrant workers in terms of both in and out of work benefits. A good start would be a (taxed) salary that leaves them as net contributors when dependents are calculated in - below that, no free healthcare, no tax credits, etc.
 
scaramanga said:
Massive public spending cuts are the obvious answer to anyone who isn't kidding themselves about the state of the economy.

We've had little to no growth for years, a rapidly inflating population, a workforce that either doesn't want to work or wants to "work" from home and increased expectations of what the state can/will provide.

Public spending has increased year on year to the point where the tax burden is as large as after WWII. Yet people are calling it austerity because the amount spent per person appears to be shrinking.

There needs to be a massive reset on what people expect from the state, on the effort they think they can get away with putting in at work and on how much we can afford to pay immigrant workers in terms of both in and out of work benefits. A good start would be a (taxed) salary that leaves them as net contributors when dependents are calculated in - below that, no free healthcare, no tax credits, etc.
Click to expand...
Problem is you would not get elected on that platform. Maybe Farage.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Problem is you would not get elected on that platform. Maybe Farage.
Click to expand...
Not only would I not get elected, if never stand to represent the shower of clams that make up the electorate.

Can you imagine the torture of constituency surgeries? Spending all day dealing with the little people and their little problems?
 
scaramanga said:
Massive public spending cuts are the obvious answer to anyone who isn't kidding themselves about the state of the economy.

We've had little to no growth for years, a rapidly inflating population, a workforce that either doesn't want to work or wants to "work" from home and increased expectations of what the state can/will provide.

Public spending has increased year on year to the point where the tax burden is as large as after WWII. Yet people are calling it austerity because the amount spent per person appears to be shrinking.

There needs to be a massive reset on what people expect from the state, on the effort they think they can get away with putting in at work and on how much we can afford to pay immigrant workers in terms of both in and out of work benefits. A good start would be a (taxed) salary that leaves them as net contributors when dependents are calculated in - below that, no free healthcare, no tax credits, etc.
Click to expand...
Most governments are themselves on the wrong side of wealth equality.

They've been such generous lenders :)
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Most governments are themselves on the wrong side of wealth equality.

They've been such generous lenders :)
Click to expand...
Wealth (in)equality is just nonsense made up by those who have run out of other reasons to try and steal from the hard working.

They used to argue that the poor couldn't survive on their meagre earnings and therefore it was our responsibility to pay for their shortcomings. So we did, and now even those on the lowest wages can afford shelter, food, clothing, Sky TV, tobacco, etc so they've had to change the narrative in order to extortionate more from those who've earned more.

Now that they can't shout "the poor don't have enough" they've started shouting "but you have more" as if that's some valid reason to give them what we've earned.
 
scaramanga said:
Wealth (in)equality is just nonsense made up by those who have run out of other reasons to try and steal from the hard working.

They used to argue that the poor couldn't survive on their meagre earnings and therefore it was our responsibility to pay for their shortcomings. So we did, and now even those on the lowest wages can afford shelter, food, clothing, Sky TV, tobacco, etc so they've had to change the narrative in order to extortionate more from those who've earned more.

Now that they can't shout "the poor don't have enough" they've started shouting "but you have more" as if that's some valid reason to give them what we've earned.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm...

I think there's still plenty of poor that can shout 'they don't have enough'

Hard working people deserves everything they have.
Non- productive assett hoarders are not that.

Ps and don't kid yourself that you did anything for anyone:)
 
scaramanga said:
Not only would I not get elected, if never stand to represent the shower of clams that make up the electorate.

Can you imagine the torture of constituency surgeries? Spending all day dealing with the little people and their little problems?
Click to expand...
Winston Churchill said that the greatest argument against democracy was a 5-second conversation with the average voter.

I remember when the government reduced the tax charge on balances held by banks a friend of mine thought it was a terrible idea and the tax should be increased. I was like: "it's your money"
What?
"It's your money. Well not just your money but everyone who banks there. It's not the bank's money"
It is the bank's money.
"What is a bank?"
It's a business that deals in money
"Whose money does it deal with?"
And so on and so forth.....
 
Kompakted said:
Winston Churchill said that the greatest argument against democracy was a 5-second conversation with the average voter.

I remember when the government reduced the tax charge on balances held by banks a friend of mine thought it was a terrible idea and the tax should be increased. I was like: "it's your money"
What?
"It's your money. Well not just your money but everyone who banks there. It's not the bank's money"
It is the bank's money.
"What is a bank?"
It's a business that deals in money
"Whose money does it deal with?"
And so on and so forth.....
Click to expand...
Your friend sounds like a stupid macaron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back