Do you want to discuss boring politics? (163 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
400 seats isn’t a bad result. Reduced number of votes is what is bad whilst increase for Le Pen is great*.

Have you never heard of Momentum?

* your word, not mine
Click to expand...

He operates on headlines and avoids detail as he has no understanding of them. He gains all his views from twitter.

He will now look at momentum and think you are referring to Jon Lansman
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Stick it all in Blackburn.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness planning is the big test of “country before party”. The majority is big enough that local Labour MPs could be allowed to protest but I don’t think that matches the message personally. One of the hard truths that needs to be told is some stuff will get built even if everyone isn’t delighted about it because the country needs it. So I hope Starmer does build in new Labour constituencies.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
jimmyhillsfanclub said:
The French situation is going to get very messy, & not just for the French, but the EU will be shitting their corrupt neo-liberal pants too......

...I think we may well see more than one Olympic flame in Paris this summer......
Click to expand...

Yeah the hard left love a good riot
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
You’re talking about execution. I’m talking about making it a focal point of their campaign. Much of their voter base moved to reform primarily because of immigration. To suggest it wasn’t strategically the right move to focus on this is silly
Click to expand...
Is, year's ago now Windrush too strong,the cost both human and economic?
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
You’re taking one seemingly extreme part of their campaign (realistically they didn’t actually send anyone to Rwanda did they) and pretending that that’s representative of their whole manifesto.

In reality they knew it was a major factor for their voter base so they responded accordingly. That aside they are socially pretty centrist (legalised same sex marriage, maintain public healthcare, maintain social welfare), as well as economically (progressive taxation, publicly funded education, intervention in financial services and environmental protection).

Getting all wound up because they doubled down on their (ineffective) hard line immigration policy because that’s obviously what their voter base wanted (see: all the bloody votes that went to reform) doesn’t make them an extreme right party.

If people honestly can’t see that then there’s no hope
Click to expand...
All those things you mention were only let through because the metrics told them it was just too unpopular. Gay marriage was opposed by them for years, people like Hunt have been arguing for a US based healthcare system for years and have snuck privatisation in everywhere - it's just they know it would be political suicide to say it out loud. Similarly they've been against legislation controlling banks and financial institutions and only brought (watered down) measures through because of the absolute shitfest they made leading to global downturns. Environmental protection - don't make me laugh. We had clean waterways until the Tories came in and now they're lifeless and full of shit.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
You’re talking about execution. I’m talking about making it a focal point of their campaign. Much of their voter base moved to reform primarily because of immigration. To suggest it wasn’t strategically the right move to focus on this is silly
Click to expand...
Nobody had executing immigrants in their manifesto, did they?
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
I can guarantee he'll be playing tough guy to show how much of a serious politician he is, little wanker
Click to expand...

“I’ve told them our fiscal rules. I am in charge and they need to accept that”

I didn’t realise he nearly lost his seat. Shame he didn’t - at least that other buffoon Ainsworth did.
 
David O'Day

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
skybluetony176

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
The 300,000 new homes magically shrunk to 14,000? Over what period?
Click to expand...
Presumably that’s additional every year on top of the previous year. That would put us on almost 300K a year by the end of the current parliament. To put that into some sort of context if they can deliver an extra 14k year on year that would be an 13,100 extra homes than the Tories delivered in terms of growth last year. The Tories figure of annual house building has been as low as 125K new homes a year to a high of 245K in 2019, since Covid we’ve struggled to build much more than 200K a year. Partly due to a skills shortage following something else that happened in 2020. Which is why we relaxed immigration rules for construction workers last year.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
From BBC

14,000 new homes will be geographically spread across England - chancellorpublished at 11:08
11:08​

When will the Labour government deliver 300,000 new homes a year?

An ITV reporter asks this question and says that level hasn't been seen in the UK since the 1950s.

14,000 new homes will be geographically spread across England, Reeves says, adding that they have to ramp up building.

"We can't build overnight, but that's why we have set out today the initial steps that we are going to take to unlock private sector investments to build those homes," the chancellor says.

Im afraid I don’t get how that’s an answer to the question. However the longer it takes to start, the higher the number per year to achieve the target,
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
The
skybluetony176 said:
Presumably that’s additional every year on top of the previous year. That would put us on almost 300K a year by the end of the current parliament. To put that into some sort of context if they can deliver an extra 14k year on year that would be an 13,100 extra homes than the Tories delivered in terms of growth last year. The Tories figure of annual house building has been as low as 125K new homes a year to a high of 245K in 2019, since Covid we’ve struggled to build much more than 200K a year. Partly due to a skills shortage following something else that happened in 2020. Which is why we relaxed immigration rules for construction workers last year.
Click to expand...
The plan/ promise is to build 1,500,000 new homes over the next 5 years (parliament), not be be building at a rate of 300,000 per year (or 1.5 million per 5 years) by the end of that period.
What the Tories did is irrelevant. This is Labours target going forward and, presumably, does not rely on public funding to achieve.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
David O'Day said:
there is not going to be any austerity, if you think there is I have a bridge i'd love to sell you
Click to expand...

OK, we shall see. The language being used currently is identical to that used by the Tories back then, the sole purpose of which was to justify austerity.

I'm surprised an incumbent Tory minister didn't leave a silly note about no money being left.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Good to see that the government's being given time to sort the issues...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PVA
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Where she gave an example of applications the govt has already approved? Thats the only mention of 14000 in the whole thing I can see.
Click to expand...
BBC haven’t given the detail then, but even then it wasn’t an answer to the question. I should really bear in mind that Labour politicians are still politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 155 (members: 1, guests: 154)
Top