fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It does because the 'borrowing' is just a pretty safe and steady private sector investment in things like pensions, a good thing.
Most spending I assume comes from borrowing
I’m not trying to be pedantic here but where exactly are these policies?as i said no one sets policies in the reply to a budget speech
they have announced policies since then
I reckon its the start of a secret tory cabinet bet..... try & get a Harry Enfield catchphrase into every TV interview....
So watch this space...for "loadsa money", "only me", "suits you sir" etc.
The outright winner would be if Sunak goes with "I'm considerably richer than yow" or "running the economy is very much like making love to a beautiful woman"...
This week Elsie has mostly been eating once a day.This week I 'ave been mostly eating... Foie Gras
What a patronising c**t.I know its been posted twice but fuck me, what a cnut.
Can you imagine the right wing press if this was Diane Abbott.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Oh we're back to the DON'T THEY KNOW THERE'S A WAR ON? stage of the cycle. Shameless pricks.
Amazing how Starmer shut the whole thing down with one very simple and obvious move and they have no retort whatsoever.
"Johnson ducks question on Starmer's offer to resign if fined over lockdown breaches, saying he wants to 'move beyond' that
At his press conference Boris Johnson was asked, for the first time in public, about Keir Starmer’s decision to say he will resign if fined by the police for breaking lockdown rules. Asked if that was the right thing to do, and if he was acting dishonourably by not resigning himself, Johnson just claimed he had move on from that. He replied:
We’ve moved, we’re trying to move beyond all that, we’re trying to focus on the issues that really, not least the war in Ukraine."
People actually vote for these scumbags Part 2:
Reports Johnson wants to bin Rishi off and blame it all on him. Actually think he’s got a point. Johnson is fucking useless but his brand of politics has been hampered by a chancellor from 1982.
Reports Johnson wants to bin Rishi off and blame it all on him. Actually think he’s got a point. Johnson is fucking useless but his brand of politics has been hampered by a chancellor from 1982.
If Mo Mowlam was still with us she’d probably agree with that 100%. Although she was a resounding success in her brief, I kind of think Sunak deserves fucking off.There is no difference from any MP from any Party.
They all only have two concerns. The rest is just window dressing.
1.) How to get power.
2.) How to keep power.
When someone gets too powerful that threatens your reign, then it's time to unleash the dogs.
If Mo Mowlam was still with us she’d probably agree with that 100%. Although she was a resounding success in her brief, I kind of think Sunak deserves fucking off.
he could head hunt Rachel reeves and no one would know the difference
Spies of course being well known for their openness, sure they will all willingly sign up to this.Ha ha ha ha. Classic
I wonder what that bill says about SoS for International Development running back channel talks with Foreign Governments?Ha ha ha ha. Classic
I wonder what that bill says about SoS for International Development running back channel talks with Foreign Governments?
Ha ha ha ha. Classic
Spies of course being well known for their openness, sure they will all willingly sign up to this.
Let Them Be Ambushed With CakeThink it’s a new soundbite
‘Parisian elites’
So snobby towards the working man they’re snorting snails
While I agree about having to govern for the world we actually live in rather than the one we want to, there has to be a plan for change otherwise what's the point? If you just go with the way things are rather than should be we'd still have serfdoms and slavery. There has to be a plan to move onto.I mean it’s a binary question so one goes up one goes down. The one economic indicator they still lag massively on is ability to reduce the deficit.
Now you’ll say (rightly) that that shouldn’t be an economic indicator and it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics in political and media circles which misinform the public. And I’ll say: live in the world we have not the one we want.
This I think is a problem a lot on the left struggle with. When faced with a system they disagree with they’d rather lose valiantly complaining about the system than accept it and make the best of a bad hand.
Examples include “defund the police”, modern economics, the press, etc. etc. outside of party politics the environmental movement basically fucked itself with this thinking “All we need to do is change how 7 billion people live, then we don’t need nuclear/electric cars/whatever”.
While I agree about having to govern for the world we actually live in rather than the one we want to, there has to be a plan for change otherwise what's the point? If you just go with the way things are rather than should be we'd still have serfdoms and slavery. There has to be a plan to move onto.
And this is the problem. Massive change too quickly and society will struggle to cope with it all (especially as those with power and influence deliberatly try to prevent it's success), so incremental change is needed. But often incremental change doesn't go as fast as people want so they become dissillusioned and go back to the status quo. You can't win.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?