Do you want to discuss boring politics? (240 Viewers)

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Used to call it Schroedingers Council when my Dad was a councillor. Useless, couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery but also responsible for everything from what colour people paint their houses to whether a student selects a particular Uni.

Given our council has just announced that putting the football on a big screen is beyond its capabilities I think it's safe to say it falls into the former category.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member

They get a hard-on for anything that can be exploited.

I honestly think a lot of them think the world is a better place when someone or something is being taken advantage of, as it allows people like them to make more money.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Hopefully has a knock on affect for the Midlands
Yeah good news for UK, but big shame that we missed out.

As an aside, no doubt it's somewhat different nowadays(!) especially when it's just a powerplant, but it did for Rootes Group having plants separated off in different areas of the country, when they were refused permission to expand Ryton and had to build in Scotland instead...

(And I'm just contributing so Grendel can't say I haven't ;))
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Yeah good news for UK, but big shame that we missed out.

As an aside, no doubt it's somewhat different nowadays(!) especially when it's just a powerplant, but it did for Rootes Group having plants separated off in different areas of the country, when they were refused permission to expand Ryton and had to build in Scotland instead...

(And I'm just contributing so Grendel can't say I haven't ;))

I thought the real reason that the Imp was built by Scottish nailbenders 🙂 was that Rootes was bribed by the government to shift production there.

I think the theory that if you can weld a 3" thick steel plate on a 50,000 tonne ship, then you can install a fiddly dashboard on a small car was tested to destruction, sadly.

For all of that, I always though the Imp was a pretty good driver's car and could take some hammer. I don't remember them being any more unreliable than early minis, but I'm sure others will differ
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I thought the real reason that the Imp was built by Scottish nailbenders 🙂 was that Rootes was bribed by the government to shift production there.
They originally wanted to extend Ryton, but that wasn't allowed and yep, a pot of state aid to sweeten the Scottish catastrophe. So they ended up transporting the shells back to Coventry to be fitted out, then back up to Scotland to be finished...

Government interference breaking a relatively well run car company, for a British one! That and Acton enjoying a strike or three...

(Wouldn't mind a Hillman Imp, never tried a rear engined car! It was the early ones that failed as it was released too early before the faults had been ironed out. They sorted the issues, but by then the reputational damage had been done)
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
They originally wanted to extend Ryton, but that wasn't allowed and yep, a pot of state aid to sweeten the Scottish catastrophe. So they ended up transporting the shells back to Coventry to be fitted out, then back up to Scotland to be finished...

Government interference breaking a relatively well run car company, for a British one! That and Acton enjoying a strike or three...

(Wouldn't mind a Hillman Imp, never tried a rear engined car! It was the early ones that failed as it was released too early before the faults had been ironed out. They sorted the issues, but by then the reputational damage had been done)

I've driven a few Porsches, none of them mine of course (and not nicked either!). Downhill corners in the wet is supposed to be the widow maker for rear engined cars, iirc, but by the time I was old enough to borrow one I was way too careful to find out. 😄

Had a good go in their 4x4 monster too, which was lovely and went surprisingly well off-road. "As good as a Land Rover", said the bloke trying to sell me one (like I could ever afford it). I coughed politely, not wishing to spoil the atmosphere; I've driven an awful lot of Landies.... 😁
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I don't understand the play here. Johnson says pass on his messages, government tries to block it.

To what purpose? What's the end game?
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I don't understand the play here. Johnson says pass on his messages, government tries to block it.

To what purpose? What's the end game?
Did Johnson only say that safe in the knowledge that the government were going to block giving evidence to an enquiry that they themselves set up?

You can only assume the play is that Sunak is more embroiled in partygate than previously known, embroiled enough to bring him down. I felt sorry for Sunak previously on the matter of partygate, I thought his excuse was reasonable that he believed he was arriving for a meeting only to be ambushed by cake. No.10 wasn’t his residence, it was reasonable to believe that he wasn’t the ringleader. He’s now casting doubts on his own previously believable defence. It’s also made a mockery of all the accountability bollocks he spouted when he first got the job.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
You can only assume the play is that Sunak is more embroiled in partygate than previously known, embroiled enough to bring him down. I felt sorry for Sunak previously on the matter of partygate, I thought his excuse was reasonable that he believed he was arriving for a meeting only to be ambushed by cake. No.10 wasn’t his residence, it was reasonable to believe that he wasn’t the ringleader. He’s now casting doubts on his own previously believable defence. It’s also made a mockery of all the accountability bollocks he spouted when he first got the job.
This is the only thing that really makes sense. Either Johnson is happily saying I'll release them knowing someone else has his back or he's happy to release them and drop a load of shit on Sunak

Either way Sunak's claim that his government will have integrity and accountability is in tatters
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
This is the only thing that really makes sense. Either Johnson is happily saying I'll release them knowing someone else has his back or he's happy to release them and drop a load of shit on Sunak

Either way Sunak's claim that his government will have integrity and accountability is in tatters

It's about dropping Sunak in the shit, mostly, I think. There's a huge sense of betrayal from Johnson and his followers and they'd love to wreck Sunak's premiership.

No matter how damning any evidence might be for Johnson, I think he believes that the Conservative Party membership would vote him back in as leader regardless. He'd probably be right on that because they're bloody loonies, but the country as a whole would hopefully differ...
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
It's about dropping Sunak in the shit, mostly, I think. There's a huge sense of betrayal from Johnson and his followers and they'd love to wreck Sunak's premiership.

No matter how damning any evidence might be for Johnson, I think he believes that the Conservative Party membership would vote him back in as leader regardless. He'd probably be right on that because they're bloody loonies, but the country as a whole would hopefully differ...
Even Boris must know that after Sunak is done the next time they’ll be a Tory PM will be a good decade away. His political career is done and he knows it, may as well bring Sunak down in the process.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
This is the only thing that really makes sense. Either Johnson is happily saying I'll release them knowing someone else has his back or he's happy to release them and drop a load of shit on Sunak

Either way Sunak's claim that his government will have integrity and accountability is in tatters
Agreed. makes absolutely no sense to set up an inquiry looking into it and then try and prevent it getting hold of information. Looks dodgy as fuck.

If those messages are irrlelevant, then it won't matter because the inquiry will just disregard them. But it's up to them to decide what is and isn't relevant - not for the government to dictate it to them.
 

duffer

Well-Known Member
Even Boris must know that after Sunak is done the next time they’ll be a Tory PM will be a good decade away. His political career is done and he knows it, may as well bring Sunak down in the process.

If it was any normal human being I'd completely agree mate, but Boris is such a deluded narcissist I think he genuinely believes the country will have him back regardless (cf Trump). Step one is to ditch Rishi of course...
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Rachel Reeves waters down Labour £28bn green projects pledge
Another banging reason to vote for the fake Tories…..

Oh god here we go again, Thatcherite wisdom. How sensible.

I abhor the way in which they talk about the 'economy' as a thing that can be damaged. It's not, the economy is just a general term for the exchange of resources. It is what it is.

When is she going to talk about tangibly improving peoples' lives? I cycled into work today through 4 boroughs of Greater Manchester, honestly it is embarrassing what a state infrastructure is is. Glass and litter everywhere, roads full of potholes. You won't "crash the economy" by spending more money paying people and companies to fix these problems you stupid Tory fucking drone.

"To borrow £28bn each and every year for a decade would fuel inflation, and force [the Bank of England] to raise interest rates even further. It's the height of irresponsibility."

Utterly bizarre take. The UK government deficit has been no lower than £36bn in any single year in the last 20 years. It has not driven inflation until recent events.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Is there any economic evidence that borrowing and spending increases inflation? I can’t see anything, just money printing.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Soon the only reason to vote Labour will be that they’re not the Tories and they’re the best tactical vote to get them out/keep them out in your constituency.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
Oh god here we go again, Thatcherite wisdom. How sensible.

I abhor the way in which they talk about the 'economy' as a thing that can be damaged. It's not, the economy is just a general term for the exchange of resources. It is what it is.

When is she going to talk about tangibly improving peoples' lives? I cycled into work today through 4 boroughs of Greater Manchester, honestly it is embarrassing what a state infrastructure is is. Glass and litter everywhere, roads full of potholes. You won't "crash the economy" by spending more money paying people and companies to fix these problems you stupid Tory fucking drone.



Utterly bizarre take. The UK government deficit has been no lower than £36bn in any single year in the last 20 years. It has not driven inflation until recent events.
it's an extra 28bn
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top