|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 17:23:35 GMT
I wouldn’t mind paying the Tax/Vat/NI, if it felt like I was getting something back.. every public service is fucking shit, the roads are a joke, but we’re paying out record levels of tax. I mean if there were shiny new hospitals/schools etc it’d be a reasonable compromise. And as for Gully (another leaflet through the door/ straight in the bin) about how he’s transforming tunstall library and swimming baths.. his party shut the things! When you actually sit back and think of all the money in taxes/vat/road tax and all the other taxes that they’re taking in, I mean where the hell does it all go🤷🏼♂️ serious question?? In the pockets of the shareholders of the companies who win the government contracts. In other words, to mates of the tory party. Covid saw the most monumental extraction of tax pounds paid to tory donors that we have ever seen. And Rishi Sunak doesn’t want to collect back the billions fraudulently claimed during covid. Starmer does. Yet people on here say labour is the same as the tories.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 17:14:10 GMT
I think higher taxes for everyone are inevitable but nobody dares talk honestly about it. We have an ageing population and a reducing birth-rate - a double whammy that has no easy fix. I’ll give you the easy fix. Make the record numbers of billionaires and multimillionaires who profited enormously during covid and the cost of living crisis pay a small percentage of their massive profits to fund better public services. A wealth tax of 1 or 2 percent for anyone worth over £10m, at the same time as regulating to ensure people cannot hide behind businesses, would raise a huge amount.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 11:48:26 GMT
Clearly, Whitty has not been consulting with the real covid experts on the Oatcake Covid thread.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 10:26:20 GMT
Sir Knype, Chief Medical Officer of the Oatcake knows a lot more about covid than Vallance. Looks at the stats from the WHO from across Northern Europe for the same timeframe and miraculosuly they are all going in the same direction, the others didn't have any such scheme? Other than eat out to help out, did all of Northern Europe have the exact same covid policies? Did they also have the exact same levels of covid in the country before the scheme? Perhaps as well as the Chief Medical Officer for the Oatcake, you should be one of the Silks cross examining witnesses at the enquiry so you could show Vallance is wrong about eat out to help out…
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 10:23:50 GMT
Why can't he? What he said is not true but if its his opinion surely its fine to post? Are you admin? thanks , yes i agree regarding my original comment , it is very unlikely that liebour have lost the terrorist vote . I'm surprised the lefties on here weren't happy about it .
It's a frightening prospect that Labour might need terrorist supporters to secure a majority , i wonder what the price will be to reflect that support ? Funny how hamas supporters can walk the streets of london and get the backing of the lefties on here on the grounds of free speech and yet they don't want me to exercise my right to criticise them .
We had the Workington man, we now have terrorists votes! How do we define ourselves as a “terrorist voter”? How many exist in each constituency? Many thousands it seems if they are essential to secure a majority!? Presumably these terrorists backed Johnson in 2019 given the size of his majority.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 9:16:08 GMT
This is just my opinion….Tories are in turmoil and know they cannot stop the tsunami of next years election from ousting them from government. So this massive tax give away and 8.5% increase in pensions(it’s not just the state pension but all public service pensions as well) is designed to really stitch up the next administration, probably labour, because they will be left with no alternative but to reverse tax cuts and other unpopular decisions like possibly scrapping the triple lock. Of course this will have a negative effect on the next governments support and the cycle starts again with Tories back in power in the 2029 GE. Imo what is needed is a credible 3rd party to break this cycle we’ve been in for almost a century now. Unfortunately that won’t happen any time soon. You are absolutely right. But FPTP means there will not be a 3rd party. Electoral reform is the single most important thing that this country needs to do to make our country better.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 9:14:02 GMT
Well done on slipping Corbyn in True though. I’ll see your Corbyn, and raise with Truss and Kwarteng.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 22, 2023 9:12:38 GMT
The data from all over Europe shows that lots of countries without the scheme also peaked at a similar time, did Eat out to Help out cause that also? Why on earth would it, there were no similar schemes in Europe. Sir Patrick Vallance Chief Medical Officer for England believes it was responsible for Deaths in England Any comment that Ministers including Sunak were aware that it was risky and that Rishi felt it was "OK" to "let people die" to avoid another lockdown Twice now you have quoted the "Data" without offering any Do you have anything of substance to support your position? Or are you just offering your opinion? Sir Knype, Chief Medical Officer of the Oatcake knows a lot more about covid than Vallance.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 20, 2023 17:50:39 GMT
Let me be clear, I don’t think that Tories will improve life for anyone. It doesn’t mean that they won’t be able to create enough spin to get people engaged though. They’ve ravaged the UK economy and infrastructure. However, if the world economy improves, the UK one will do too. They will certainly take credit for it (as would Labour). Then they just need to repeat that point over and over again until that’s what people remember: “we are at a turning point, we have overcome issues of x,y,z….we will make Britain great again” blah, blah, blah. On the other hand, Starmer doesn’t seem to have much to say. He can’t keep his party in check either, which doesn’t help. At a time when Conservatives fall apart (again), cracks in Labour have widened. It’s poor management of the situation. The longer the Israel/Palestine situation escalates for the bigger the banana skin it presents for Labour MPs and election candidates. The only thing that makes labour lose the next election from where we are is the labour party. Many in the labour party seem to prefer more tory rule than a kier Starmer government, or a Labour government that isn’t what they consider proper labour.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 20, 2023 17:49:31 GMT
If the economy is important, voters will never vote Tory again. They have been a disaster for our wallets. But voters are thick in many cases. Agreed. But with the right media spin (inflation halving apparently meaning more money in pockets 😒) people will eat it up. A nice little tax break at the right time (while ignoring the tax increases Tories have added since being in power) will also help. That’s the power of media, right? Tories have a better grasp of that than Labour. Yes, and for as long as our media is able to be owned by foreign non-doms it will continue.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 20, 2023 16:07:23 GMT
Cant be too hard on Boris for not knowing about science as most politicians dont "Patrick Vallance says that the prime minister acknowledges himself that he gave up science when he was 15. He notes this was not an issue unique to Boris Johnson, and recalls a meeting of science advisers from across Europe, where an adviser from one country said "the leader of that country had enormous problems with exponential curves” - something which raised a laugh in the meeting, as all the leaders had that issue." Vallance is being asked about how he was required to provide scientific advise to key decision makers. He said earlier that only 10% of the civil servants hired as part of the government's graduate intake programme had a science, maths or engineering degree, with 90% coming from a humanities and social science background. "It means that the routine consideration of science in policy formulation was not where it needed to be," he told the inquiry earlier today. Earlier witnesses, including the No 10 adviser Dr Ben Warner, have raised similar concerns, saying they were worried about the lack of scientific skills in key government departments. Vallance says the government now has a target for 50% of all fast track recruits to have a science or mathematics background by 2024. He adds he will "look with interest from the sidelines to see whether it's achieved". I don’t think more maths graduates would have led to a better response to covid.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 20, 2023 16:05:55 GMT
I predict Stoke to win the double, about as likely. We’ll see. Some nice tax cuts as Sunak is promising now, will motivate the Tory voters to get out and vote. What policy is Starmer promoting at present that will do the same for Labour? The economy is the single biggest driving factor behind most votes. If there’s an upswing before the next election, it will be tight. Labour are just so pathetically weak and inept to take advantage. If the economy is important, voters will never vote Tory again. They have been a disaster for our wallets. But voters are thick in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 19, 2023 21:38:44 GMT
Don't let the thread title get in the way. Apologies Henry. I'll make sure to only criticise and discuss the current governing party in this thread moving forward. Hopefully nobody gets upset by that and starts questioning why the thread may be unbalanced. Damend if you do. Damned if you don't. As long as her party don’t implode, she’ll be chancellor by this time next year
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2023 10:37:54 GMT
Foreign policy didn’t affect the Rwanda policy intentionally. It was entirely about immigration and culture wars (it has backfired). Or are you saying you think the foreign office came up with a policy objective to hurt our standing in the world, and they then devised the Rwanda policy!? I know it cane from Suella and the Home Office (from people who work there). Foreign policy didn’t affect the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech, it was about humiliating Starmer (it worked well). The people you know in the Home Office must be pretty dense if they are not aware that the Rwanda Policy was introduced by Priti Patel/Boris and merely carried on enthusiastically by Suella/Rishi You're creating a false narrative, no one is suggesting, least of all me, that the Rwanda Policy was concocted by the Foreign Office but decisions of this nature are taken by a collective Cabinet so they would have assessed the impact. I'm not crediting this Government with any specific intelligence they just made a calculated decision that a Domestic Policy which would appeal to some voters was in their Electoral Interest over any negative International consequences of appearing untrustworthy and incompetent. The legal advice they received must have highlighted the strong possibility that the Rwanda Policy would be found to be illegal in the Courts, they were briefing on what they would do alternatively in the days leading up to the Judgement You keep reintroducing the SNP Amendment which I've never mentioned as it's entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with your original post I replied to. I think we agree. Rwanda policy is primarily about immigration, cooked up by the Home Office to stop the boats, but obviously has some unintentional negative implications on the perception of our nation by the wider world. The SNP amendment was part of the original discussion on the point I was making and my apologies if I have conflated some of your replies on this topic with others who have replied on it. I stand by the point that both are about playing politics before anything else.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2023 9:27:17 GMT
I always felt he did a reasonable job in the tricky circumstances of 2010 - any government coming into power was going to have to make difficult decisions. Nick Clegg was very harshly treated too during what was a pretty stable and professional government, though god knows why he didn't just draw a red line at the tuition fees when it was apparently offered to him. Only my opinion but I fail to see any good in what Cameron and Osborne did. I am clutching at straws, but they were better than what has followed!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2023 7:55:55 GMT
They have an impact on how the world sees us, but that wasn’t the most important thing in either issue. The world thinks we are a bit of joke since brexit anyway. Your original point was "And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy" which was why I even entered the discussion You now acknowledge it does influence Foreign Policy but you caveat that it was unimportant which is subjective and which I disagree with you. You have now introduced a different element, Brexit, as a reason why UK may be considered Bat Shit crazy by other Countries. Whilst I agree with you on that point, Brexit was a decision by UK to self harm. Disregarding International Treaties when inconvenient can cause harm to other Countries so it's far more significant on International Relationships. Foreign policy didn’t affect the Rwanda policy intentionally. It was entirely about immigration and culture wars (it has backfired). Or are you saying you think the foreign office came up with a policy objective to hurt our standing in the world, and they then devised the Rwanda policy!? I know it cane from Suella and the Home Office (from people who work there). Foreign policy didn’t affect the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech, it was about humiliating Starmer (it worked well).
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 20:56:30 GMT
How is pushing for a pause in fighting not wanting peace? Do tell me the difference between, say, a 3 day ceasefire and a 3 day humanitarian pause in fighting so aid can be allowed in? Why a 3 day ceasefire and not a permanent one? All Israel are doing is making more terrorists. Would Hamas agree to a permanent ceasefire? It isn’t just on Israel.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 20:55:55 GMT
What so they are calling for permanent peace….good luck with that. Every ceasefire I have heard of in the past was for a few days or limited period. We're over 25 years in Northern Ireland now. Much prefer it. Was peace achieved in N Ire just by a foreign government having a vote about it during the height of tensions? Or did it take years of diplomacy and negotiations? Realistically, a temporary ceasefire, or humanitarian pause, is the only plausible way of persuading Israel to stop for aid to get in. They are never going to stop when they know the second they do, Hamas will attack them again. I am all for peace. So is Sunak and Starmer. But peace doesn’t happen overnight.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 19:37:37 GMT
How is pushing for a pause in fighting not wanting peace? Do tell me the difference between, say, a 3 day ceasefire and a 3 day humanitarian pause in fighting so aid can be allowed in? The key difference is noone is asking for a 3 day ceasefire are they? They're asking for a ceasefire. What so they are calling for permanent peace….good luck with that. Every ceasefire I have heard of in the past was for a few days or limited period.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:51:39 GMT
I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The decisions themselves are what's important In the Supreme Court Judgement if Rwanda Policy was pursued it would have placed UK outside ECHR alongside Russia and Belarus. It went further to say it would contravene UN Conventions on Refugees, Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and abolish not just the UK Human Rights Act but also domestic asylum legislation from 1993 and 2002 which would put UK alongside North Korea It is inconceivable that Government Legal opinion would not have told them that and yet they chose to pursue it. That is the position UK is presenting Internationally I made no comment on Labour, they are not in Government. The Government position on Gaza is to call for Humanitarian Pauses which contrasts with Macron's, arguably a closer allay of Israel, call for a Ceasefire a week ago at a Peace Conference in Paris Surely you must accept both policies will be taken into account by other Countries dealings with UK in the future I'm sure you're aware that Lib Dems Voted in favour of SNP Amendment They have an impact on how the world sees us, but that wasn’t the most important thing in either issue. The world thinks we are a bit of joke since brexit anyway.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:31:26 GMT
Anybody ever used it? I'm due to pick up my first ever bag today which is a cold food bag from Greg's for £3. Will report back on what I get later. It is great. I often use it for coffee shops for loads of cheap pastries for the kids.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:19:55 GMT
How has he sacrificed his principles? He wasn’t standing in front of a poster saying “ceasefires are better than humanitarian pauses regardless of the length of ceasefire or the conflict we are referring to”. It isn’t black or white. One side or the other. Either against Israel regardless, or for them regardless. No mention of his labour leadership pledges I see You believe what you like about him I’ll stick with my opinion he’s about as trustworthy as a Lib Dem politician I thought he had sacrificed his principles on Israel because of that ridiculous tweet!? You’ve backtracked quickly! You mean the pre covid leadership pledges….absolutely nothing has happened since then that could possibly have changed priorities and scope of the changes possible. No country in the world has the same policies now as they did in early 2020.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:07:42 GMT
Sorry, are you trying to equate standing in front of a banner opposing Israel from playing football with being for a ceasefire in the current war rather than humanitarian pauses? And that Starmer has somehow forgotten his principles of standing in front of a poster about kicking Israel out of FIFA because he would prefer humanitarian pauses to war rather than a ceasefire? You are really clutching at straws No just pointing out it’s not the first and certainly not the last time that he’ll sacrifice his alleged principles for the grubby reins of power Take a look of his pledges when seeking the labour leadership How has he sacrificed his principles? He wasn’t standing in front of a poster saying “ceasefires are better than humanitarian pauses regardless of the length of ceasefire or the conflict we are referring to”. It isn’t black or white. One side or the other. Either against Israel regardless, or for them regardless.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 18:06:08 GMT
The amendment to the King’s Speech was never going to pass. Our government’s vote at the UN on the issue was far more important and influential. Yesterday was utterly irrelevant to the war. It was the SNP who wanted the vote. Many people in this country will look at it as Jewish Vs Muslim vote it's just how it is. There will be Muslims and Jews who want a ceasefire but that feels like a minority as they are given very little voice by the media. Our politicians are meant to represent everyone in this country of all backgrounds, it's the price of multiculturalism. Our main party's should be completely impartial and be pushing for peace not war and they aren't. There must be many Muslims in this country questioning whether our country has their backs at all. How is pushing for a pause in fighting not wanting peace? Do tell me the difference between, say, a 3 day ceasefire and a 3 day humanitarian pause in fighting so aid can be allowed in?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:57:09 GMT
I don’t get the point of this. I think the point is the unprincipled charlatan will say or stand in front of whatever he feels will get him elected Sorry, are you trying to equate standing in front of a banner opposing Israel from playing football with being for a ceasefire in the current war rather than humanitarian pauses? And that Starmer has somehow forgotten his principles of standing in front of a poster about kicking Israel out of FIFA because he would prefer humanitarian pauses to war rather than a ceasefire? You are really clutching at straws
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:43:40 GMT
You can, but it doesn’t make the country safe. I don’t think this will fool a Supreme Court judge anytime soon. Indeed. You can pass a law to say the moon is made of green cheese - but it doesn't mean it is. However the fact that our government is going down this road is indicative of where we are and how those in charge inhabit a parallel universe. It's on a par with appointing horses as senators and ordering the tide not to come in. Why don’t we pass a law saying Hamas and Israel will live in peace for the rest of time? That sorts the middle east conflict. Easy!
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:26:23 GMT
A vote to say Israel will cease firing and Hamas to continue their evil work. A vote that Israel and Hamas couldn’t care less about. It is all symbolic nonsense. We have no influence whatsoever. So why don’t our elected MPs focus on issues that impact us. Like the cost of living crisis. Or the housing reform bill. Our influence is being an ally. Our experience in wars is second to none. The amendment to the King’s Speech was never going to pass. Our government’s vote at the UN on the issue was far more important and influential. Yesterday was utterly irrelevant to the war.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 17:12:51 GMT
I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding. The primary reason was to call for a ceasefire after the SNPs leaders family have just spent weeks being bombed in Gaza. Kier Starmer made things difficult for himself. Nobody else. Innocent people being murdered daily in Gaza is very much an important issue. Its life or death... probably much more important than many other issues right now. I am not saying it isn’t an important issue. But the UN votes by our government were far more important on the issue. The SNP never in a million years thought their amendment would pass because it was opposed by the two biggest parties. They never thought that Israel and Hamas would go “you know what, the SNP are right. We need to have a ceasefire”. It was only about trying to win over some voters in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 16:57:09 GMT
Am I missing something. How can you pass a law to declare a country safe or not. You can, but it doesn’t make the country safe. I don’t think this will fool a Supreme Court judge anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 16, 2023 16:56:07 GMT
Yes, but then have an adult debate about it. The votes on Gaza were always going to lose and were entirely for the purpose of giving Starmer a headache. There was no other purpose. The SNP wanted to humiliate Starmer, not bring about a ceasefire. They knew their amendment would lose and so the signal to the world is that it is absolutely clear the UK does not support a ceasefire. So well done SNP for getting that confirmed and on Hansard. And Rwanda is nothing to do with foreign policy. Rwanda and Israel has everything to do with Foreign Policy There was a thread recently about how influential UK was in the World i.e. it's ability to exercise Soft Power by influencing other Countries to follow it's example Well after yesterday UK has firmly stuck it's colours to the mast that it doesn't believe in following International Law and is prepared to break any agreement it has signed up to if they are inconvenient. Furthermore it fully supports other Countries who are potentially committing War Crimes. If you were given this Profile of a Country without knowing which it was, how would you describe it? In future trade negotiations do you think other Countries are more or less likely to have trust in UK or in military conflicts more or less likely to heed anything UK may say to mitigate excesses. I agree. But the primary reason for the Rwanda policy was to address asylum seekers crossing the channel on small boats. The primary reason for the SNP amendment to the King’s Speech yesterday was to make Kier Starmer’s life difficult. The primary reason for those two things does not relate to foreign policy. That is the point I am making. They were about playing politics and culture wars. And I would prefer that the House of Commons was focused on proper issues rather than grandstanding.
|
|