UK Politics- P0rn, Horn and Local Elections

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Given that the tories flogged our energy utilities to foreign companies, and EDF is owned mostly by the French government, I think British customers are subsidising the French cap.

In the exact same fashion as the British people, subject to the highest rail fares in Europe, currently financing the infrastructure upgrades to German and Swiss national rail.

 

[Spockydog]

Starmer is about to announce that he will resign if fined. Fingers crossed. 

And here's a reminder to some that whatever might have happened on the night of Beergate, nobody has repeatedly stood up and lied to Parliament about it.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The problem is, who pays for this price cap?

Simple, the rich. We've seen decades of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle shrinking with more people falling down than rising up the economic ladder. The greed at the top has gotten out of control and must be reined in. Otherwise your bozo leader will continue to flout the law while his people struggle to feed themselves. 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Simple, the rich. We've seen decades of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer and the middle shrinking with more people falling down than rising up the economic ladder. The greed at the top has gotten out of control and must be reined in. Otherwise your bozo leader will continue to flout the law while his people struggle to feed themselves. 

“The Rich” 

Great answer 

[Spockydog]

The morons have finally realised what they've done. They are now seeking a 'non-aggression pact' with Labour over Partygate.

Yeah, I'll bet they fucking are.

 

 

 

[A wilding]

Also those smaller energy companies that failed were generally always undercapitalised and were never going to survive any big price shock. They were set up in the name of competition and mostly worked as really designed, making plenty of money for the people running them who then walked away with full pockets when things went south, leaving the energy user and the tax payer to deal with the fall out.

[Spockydog]

Okay, let's do that. I am all for focusing on hypocrisy. Let's shine a big fucking light on these cunts, and the myriad differences between the things they say, compared the the things they actually do.

 

[Raja]

48 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Starmer is about to announce that he will resign if fined.

It's the right thing to do. I don't dislike Starmer as much as a lot of people, even though I'm certainly more on the left than he is, and of course the Conservatives would never do the same with Boris because they're a bunch of clowns with zero morals but I think on the whole it's probably what he should do. 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

It's the right thing to do. I don't dislike Starmer as much as a lot of people, even though I'm certainly more on the left than he is, and of course the Conservatives would never do the same with Boris because they're a bunch of clowns with zero morals but I think on the whole it's probably what he should do. 

Rumours that there will be an announcement at 4pm.

I'm not a fan. At all. He basically lied to get the job. And the moment he got the job he started abandoning the manifesto pledges that put him there.

As Leader of the Opposition, for the past two years, Starmer has been sucking on donkey balls.

Consider:

The Covid response, the £16bn (and counting) of Tory PPE fraud, the gross ministerial incompetence, the lying, the bullying, the illegal Rwanda bullshit, the Paterson Affair, the cronies, the rapists, Partygate and the Downing Street frat house, the oceans of Russian money, the Lebedev peerage and Boris Johnson's treason, not to mention Michelle fucking Mone. Labour should be out of sight, uncatchable in the polls. 

Why are they not out of sight? Well, perhaps it's because, at the end of the day, on far too many issues, Starmer's position is indistinguishable from that of the Tories.

Also, I'd rather not have an alcoholic as PM, so, if he goes, there will be no tears shed in this house.

 

[Spockydog]

Have you heard the latest horseshit?

 

[Spockydog]

This will be disastrous for Johnson and his flying monkeys. 

 

[mormont]

The idea that Starmer's problem is not being politically distinct from the Tories has a real problem when you consider that Corbyn could hardly have been further from them and did as badly or worse.

If your response to that is, Corbyn was vilified in the press and faced leaks and criticism from people who never accepted his leadership - Starmer has faced all of that too.

As for the rest, not to come over all 'it were better in my day' but the standard of discussion on this thread has been very high in the past. Can we really not drag it down?

[Spockydog]

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

As for the rest, not to come over all 'it were better in my day' but the standard of discussion on this thread has been very high in the past. Can we really not drag it down?

If that's directed at me, I don't know what you mean.

Perhaps you're upset by my assertion that Starmer is an alcoholic?

In over fifty years on this Earth, I've had to deal with enough deadbeat alcoholics in my family to a) know what it physically looks like, and b) know that alcoholics are not the most reliable people in the world, and therefore probably not suited to the demands of high office.

And I'm sorry, but if you think that a political leader's relationship with alcohol, or any other intoxicant for that matter, is not a matter for the electorate, then you really should have a serious think about that.

ETA: Just re-read the post about donkey balls. Yeah, pretty crude and I see what you mean. Apologies, I got carried away by the imagery. Have edited. 

[BigFatCoward]

It's official, he will go if fined. I'm guessing with his experience he can read and interpret a law and whether there is any chance he broke it. 

I bet they are shitting themselves now. 

It's ballsy I'll give him that. 

[Raja]

Integrity in public life? By our politicians? So rare in the last 2-3 years, certainly a contrast to this government.

[mormont]

The idea that Starmer is an alcoholic has about as much substantiation as the claim that he broke the law - less, in fact. Yet HoI is happy to state the latter as fact and Spocky is happy to treat the former as fact. Well, he's a public figure and so that's fair game. But I think we can do a bit better on all points.

 

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

This will be disastrous for Johnson and his flying monkeys. 

 

I'm not sure I agree. Johnson doesn't do shame. Johnson doesn't give a shit about hypocrisy. Even if Starmer does resign, I don't think it's possible to shame Boris Johnson into doing anything that would reduce the status of Boris Johnson. He'll go when he's forced out, and his party don't seem to have much appetite to do that right now. If anything, Starmer resigning would just redirect attention away from Johnson, and I fully expect the tories to pounce on that. 

I suspect Starmer won't have made any promises about resigning unless he's pretty confident he won't have to. However if he does, for all that I'm really not a fan of him, I think that would be a tactical mistake. It's the same mistake the left (for a given definition of "left" in this case) always makes. Never play defense.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

The idea that Starmer is an alcoholic has about as much substantiation

Even if it was, so what?  Obviously it's fair game for anyone seeking office, but at least as a political observer here in the states I definitely would not use alcohol consumption as a barometer for who to vote for.  Or if I did, it'd be the other way. 

In recent history there were two famous/infamous alcoholic presidents in a row - LBJ and Nixon.  Does the drinking account for the horrible things both of them did or the good to great things both of them did?  On the other side, we have Presidents Trump and Carter as teetotalers and Dubya as a recovering alcoholic that hasn't drank since the mid 80s.  Seems to me if there's any conclusion to draw it's that you want to avoid those that don't drink at all.  As a reminder, Joe Biden is a teetotaler as well.

Anyway, IMHO, being an alcoholic wouldn't be a disqualification in and of itself any more than an extramarital affair would.  Of course, if the alcoholism was related to demonstrable concerning behavior, that's another matter. 

[mormont]

In other news, predictably the DUP are refusing to enter a power-sharing agreement until the UK government takes 'decisive action' over the NI protocol. Conveniently this avoids them having to be the first Unionist party to nominate a Deputy First Minister rather than a First Minister.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-61373504

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

In recent history there were two famous/infamous alcoholic presidents in a row - LBJ and Nixon.  Does the drinking account for the horrible things both of them did or the good to great things both of them did?  On the other side, we have Presidents Trump and Carter as teetotalers and Dubya as a recovering alcoholic that hasn't drank since the mid 80s.  Seems to me if there's any conclusion to draw it's that you want to avoid those that don't drink at all.  As a reminder, Joe Biden is a teetotaler as well.

JFK drank a good amount as well and Obama was a proper pothead in his youth.