F xxx Off Back To France

[mickd1961]

Your probably right Mick but even if we took 25% off that opinion poll it still leaves Labour winning 351 seats which is only 30 short of what Blair got in 1997 .

I think Labour will win by a mile and then prove to be about as inept as the present lot of clowns.

[On Balance]

Deviation.


Sorry, a BBC Radio program came to mind.

[animallittle3]

I think Labour will win by a mile and then prove to be about as inept as the present lot of clowns.

The quality of politicians in this country is at an all time low on both sides of the divide .

I may well have not agreed with Thatcher or her cabinet but I couldn't question their intellect or credibility I simply disagreed with their policies .

Geoffrey Howe , Nigel Lawson , Carrington , Ken Clarke , Hesseltine or even Tebbitt were political heavyweights .

I'll say this about Thatcher no bugga took the pyss out of us , we've had no hostage incidents since she sent the SAS in to central London in 1980 and she got the rebate from the EU and she wouldn't have put up with this nonsense on the South coast either .

There would have been a solution , she wouldn't have had this shyte show , a working solution not empty words from two bit MPs throwing red meat to the far right .

Can you imagine this shower in charge in 2008 when the banks crashed and we were hours from no money in the ATM's , pure brilliance from Brown and Alistair Darling that saved the country from catastrophe .

We really are fecked because if Labour's the answer feck knows what the question was .

[baggieal]

Your probably right Mick but even if we took 25% off that opinion poll it still leaves Labour winning 351 seats which is only 30 short of what Blair got in 1997 .

There will be a Tory bribe just before the election ie the scrapping of inheritance tax but like everything where would the money come from? They wouldn’t give two s hits about that until they win the election and people fall for it - then……..

[Dubbag]

We really are fecked because if Labour's the answer feck knows what the question was .

[kettering_baggie]

No government minister should be using such language, wholly inappropriate. It seems to me that many of our politicians are not that bright, this one has stooped to using bad language instead of trying to address the issue constructively. As we all know, the country is carrying a very large financial deficit, so the problem for any government is how to allocate scarce resources. What seems to be annoying many people is the spending of £6m a day (allegedly) on looking after migrants when our own care system is failing so many of our own citizens. The NHS, of course, will swallow up as much money that is pushed its way, it will never be enough.

Giving work visas to migrants is not necessarily the answer; filling many thousands of vacancies would be a significant move towards full employment, which would be inflationary, something that we are desperately trying to bring down. Longer term, there is a serious looming problem with adequate infrastructure, power and water supplies to name but two. We are also covering large areas of arable land with houses and warehouses. Is anyone in government considering how many people this country can support in the long term without having an impact on standards of living? I do not blame people for trying to escape war and poverty to find a better life but climate change will only exacerbate the migration problem. I certainly don’t know the answer but I really cannot see the current populations of Europe (for example) having their lifestyles and standard of living significantly altered to accommodate an ever increasing number of migrants. Humans are just not that generous!

The best solution would be to halt global warming and the associated catastrophic climates changes to allow people to live and thrive in their own countries. Can’t see that happening any time soon. I really do worry about the sort of World that we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

At least the Albion will win on Saturday, won’t they?

[kettering_baggie]

No government minister should be using such language, wholly inappropriate. It seems to me that many of our politicians are not that bright, this one has stooped to using bad language instead of trying to address the issue constructively. As we all know, the country is carrying a very large financial deficit, so the problem for any government is how to allocate scarce resources. What seems to be annoying many people is the spending of £6m a day (allegedly) on looking after migrants when our own care system is failing so many of our own citizens. The NHS, of course, will swallow up as much money that is pushed its way, it will never be enough.

Giving work visas to migrants is not necessarily the answer; filling many thousands of vacancies would be a significant move towards full employment, which would be inflationary, something that we are desperately trying to bring down. Longer term, there is a serious looming problem with adequate infrastructure, power and water supplies to name but two. We are also covering large areas of arable land with houses and warehouses. Is anyone in government considering how many people this country can support in the long term without having an impact on standards of living? I do not blame people for trying to escape war and poverty to find a better life but climate change will only exacerbate the migration problem. I certainly don’t know the answer but I really cannot see the current populations of Europe (for example) having their lifestyles and standard of living significantly altered to accommodate an ever increasing number of migrants. Humans are just not that generous!

The best solution would be to halt global warming and the associated catastrophic climates changes to allow people to live and thrive in their own countries. Can’t see that happening any time soon. I really do worry about the sort of World that we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

At least the Albion will win on Saturday, won’t they?

[Omegstrat6]

Don't get me wrong, I am not a great fan of many in the current Labour party but whilst I am sure that Labour also posses too many endowed with ineptitude within their ranks, I also believe that they will not demonstrate the levels of self interest and corruption that the highest echelons of the current Tory Party have.

There are no easy fixes for any party coming in and expectations will therefore be unlikely to be met but whilst global events such as covid and the war in Ukraine have had a huge impact, so many more of the problems the country now faces are down to years of Tory rule. It will take time to tackle these.

As for talk of Thatcher, she was the most divisive PM the country has ever had. The reason is clear-a great many suffered under her reign but a great many also benefited. This cannot be said of the current lot of Tories. Thatcher may also have certainly lacked empathy like the current Tory Party leadership but she did have ability and I'm sure that, for all her faults, she would not have allowed the levels of corruption demonstrated by them.

Tactical voting is far from ideal in a democracy but in a overwhelmingly two party system, when the Tories have been this bad what other choice is there?

[kettering_baggie]

Strange, I don’t know why my last post was put up twice!

Anyway, as for future voting, I don’t think any party deserves to become the next government. Come the next election, I think that I will see what my local candidates have to say when they come round canvassing, if they bother at all. Last time, only the Conservative candidate, Philip Hollobone, came around here canvassing, the others obviously couldn’t be bothered. Prospective MPs that can’t be bothered will not get my vote, so if Hollobone is once again the only one to come to my house, then for better or worse, he gets the vote.

[animallittle3]

Don't get me wrong, I am not a great fan of many in the current Labour party but whilst I am sure that Labour also posses too many endowed with ineptitude within their ranks, I also believe that they will not demonstrate the levels of self interest and corruption that the highest echelons of the current Tory Party have.

There are no easy fixes for any party coming in and expectations will therefore be unlikely to be met but whilst global events such as covid and the war in Ukraine have had a huge impact, so many more of the problems the country now faces are down to years of Tory rule. It will take time to tackle these.

As for talk of Thatcher, she was the most divisive PM the country has ever had. The reason is clear-a great many suffered under her reign but a great many also benefited. This cannot be said of the current lot of Tories. Thatcher may also have certainly lacked empathy like the current Tory Party leadership but she did have ability and I'm sure that, for all her faults, she would not have allowed the levels of corruption demonstrated by them.

Tactical voting is far from ideal in a democracy but in a overwhelmingly two party system, when the Tories have been this bad what other choice is there?

Thatcher was divisive by design , that was the whole point of her policies .

To divide the working class by making 50% better off at the expense of the other 50% .

What they didn't envisage is the depth of division it would lead to or the fact that the Tories need working class votes as much as Labour do .

Thatcher simply thought everyone would end up middle class at some time in the future through her policies .

I suspect it never entered her head that to attract enough voters to go along with her core support they'd have to turn this far right to retain power one day and it would completely trash the party for potentially good .