Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
I have been holding my breath now for quite a while and am fast losing cons
May be of interest. I watched the first 5 minutes and found it rather depressing.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
You're right to link populism with anti-establishment politics. You're also right to say that they represent the establishment. Given that inherent contradiction, maybe you can provide multiple instances of them articulating anti-establishment politics. If you can't, there's something badly wrong with your logic.
Indeed no money to repair the potholes. But Worthing has found the magic money tree to repaint all the lines on fairly quiet residential streets. And yes, you guessed it. They are painting the lines over the potholes. So when a council claims it has no money to fix the potholes it is a lie. They have money but are intent on frittering it away on other "projects" (like painting wiggly lines on the road in Montague Street because "they did it in Copenhagen" and the ridiculously expensive relaying of the pavement at Worthing Station just to put a few new trees in).I'm not going down a 'they're all as bad as each other' or 'Labour and the Tories are the same' road but, I'm not naive enough to think that just because the government has changed, my life and millions of other lives are going to be *dramatically* different to now. There isn't the money, resources or – let's face it – enthusiasm available to, for example: 'fix' the NHS; repair all the potholes (total cost is estimated to be about £12bn, as I recall); overhaul mental health facilities; sort out the rivers; get the public transport network back on track (pun intended). Yes, the economy will improve, because that's cyclical too.
If that's cynical, then so be it. I prefer the term realistic
I'm all for cosmetic vanity projects if the money is there. When austerity prevails and the Councils are pleading poverty I find their inept failure to prioritse essential services very concerning.
@clapham_gull put "anti-establishment" in quotes. My understanding was by this he is signaling it is bullshit posturing, which was I thought his point, meaning you and he share a common view about the Tories.
There is no charge for this important UN work
Well, at least the Tories have stopped the boats.
Oh hang on.....
Yes, yes, they can't stop the boats till the planes to Rwanda take off. They are all there ready to take off, but Sunk is holding this back till after the GE, as a present to us all for voting Tory.
f*** of Sunk - how stupid do you think we are?
Oh hang on.....
Yes, yes, they can't stop the boats till the planes to Rwanda take off. They are all there ready to take off, but Sunk is holding this back till after the GE, as a present to us all for voting Tory.
f*** of Sunk - how stupid do you think we are?
nicko31
Well-known member
The Tory legacy
Unused PPE worth £1.4bn was 'stored inappropriately'
Full Support Healthcare says its products were not unloaded from the shipping containers.
www.bbc.co.uk
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The potholes are the responsibility of county councils ie West or East Sussex.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,334
I'm really struggling to keep up with this gambling malarkey. Is it right that
One labour candidate bet against himself winning and was suspended. (Craig)
Six Police officers from Sunaks protection squad suspected of betting on date of election, one suspended.
Two Conservative candidates suspected of betting on date of election and suspended. (Williams/Saunders)
Two Conservative party officials suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (Lee/Mason)
One Conservative member of the Welsh assembly suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (George)
One Conservative cabinet member admitted betting on date of election, no action. (Jack)
One Conservative candidate has admitted betting against himself winning, no action. (Davies)
I wonder how many others have been named whilst I've been typing that
One labour candidate bet against himself winning and was suspended. (Craig)
Six Police officers from Sunaks protection squad suspected of betting on date of election, one suspended.
Two Conservative candidates suspected of betting on date of election and suspended. (Williams/Saunders)
Two Conservative party officials suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (Lee/Mason)
One Conservative member of the Welsh assembly suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (George)
One Conservative cabinet member admitted betting on date of election, no action. (Jack)
One Conservative candidate has admitted betting against himself winning, no action. (Davies)
I wonder how many others have been named whilst I've been typing that
Last edited:
Both of these took "a leave of absence". From what's been reported, it's implied they did so voluntarily. But suspect we should assume they are suspended until investigations are completed.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,334
I think them taking 'a leave of absence' means Sunak doesn't have to make a decision. The only decision he has made on this so far took him a week of ever increasing pressure, whilst I believe Starmer took under 2 hours
Oh, agreed. I believe they were encouraged to take a leave of absence by the local managers, not by anyone senior (and certainly not Sunak). And it's now been left as-is because it saves Sunak from having to do anything.I think them taking 'a leave of absence' means Sunak doesn't have to make a decision. The only decision he has made on this so far took him a week of ever increasing pressure, whilst I believe Starmer took under 2 hours
nicko31
Well-known member
One of only five MPs to vote against the UK's Climate Change Act. Get rid..
Very.f*** of Sunk - how stupid do you think we are?
He thinks we are all very stupid.
gripper stebson
Well-known member
- Jul 27, 2004
- 6,680
I bet Starmer is FURIOUS at the geezer who placed that bet. Turns it into a 'Look, they're all crooks' story for the press/tories.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 15,640
To be fair, a lot of people ARE stupid...
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,334
Statistically half of people are more stupid than the average person, although I believe that in certain studies, it has peaked as high as 51.89 %
You remind me of the anti poverty campaigners, who define poverty as being below a certain percentage. Here from the CPAG website:Statistically half of people are more stupid than the average person, although I believe that in certain studies, it has peaked as high as 51.89 %
"The standard way to measure child poverty uses relative household income. A child is said to be living in poverty if they live in a household with income below 60 per cent of the national average (median) income. "
The median is the middle number is the number with the same number of other numbers above as below. If the numbers are 0-10, the median is 5. If you take the two poorest (0 and 1) and make them rich (10 and 10) the new median is 7. However, exactly the same number of earners remain below the (new) poverty line, those earning 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. So taking two people out of 'poverty' and making them 'rich' does not affect the number of people below the poverty line defined from medians. You simply change the threshold for defining poverty and the identity of the people now classed as poor since the person on '6' who had previously not been poor is now classed as poor. How sickening for him. This is how people argue that making people rich creates poverty. Numbers, eh?
Going the other way, if we start out with numbers 0-10, median 5, and we then change the 9 and 10 to 0 and 0, we can see we have created two new poor individuals who used to be rich. Median income has dropped from 5 to 3. But there are still 5 people below the median (0, 0, 0 1, and 2) and 5 above (4, 5, 6, 7, 8). So making two people extremely poor does not change the number of poor people defined by the median income. In fact it makes one person (4) no longer 'poor' based on medians. I bet they feel just great about that. This is how soaking the rich is presented as taking people 'out of poverty'.
Poverty has to be defined in relation to absolute income (or wealth - you can be well off with a lower income if you have paid for your home and car), corrected for inflation. Relative poverty (based on medians) is not a useful concept. I won't get any richer if Elon Must pays himself less (unless he gives me his money). And to reclassify people as below the poverty line when some people become richer is madness.
What we need is more people with enough to live a good life. Better incomes in relation to costs.
Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 532
Who cares though really - on the list of things to care about or even to be outraged about…? This is an absolute irrelevance, except to the media.I'm really struggling to keep up with this gambling malarkey. Is it right that
One labour candidate bet against himself winning and was suspended. (Craig)
Six Police officers from Sunaks protection squad suspected of betting on date of election, one suspended.
Two Conservative candidates suspected of betting on date of election and suspended. (Williams/Saunders)
Two Conservative party officials suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (Lee/Mason)
One Conservative member of the Welsh assembly suspected of betting on date of election, no action. (George)
One Conservative cabinet member admitted betting on date of election, no action. (Jack)
One Conservative candidate has admitted betting against himself winning, no action. (Davies)
I wonder how many others have been named whilst I've been typing that
The betting rules are extremely difficult to enforce and the bit about inside information is vague.
If A decides the date and tells B - B tells C and D and C and D tell E through to Z …who is not allowed to bet on it
Basically A and B that’s it anything else is fair game. As far as the gambling commission is concerned the biggest offence listed here is betting on yourself to lose believe it or not!!