The Next UK PM everybody... - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15036187
http://webtv.un.org

Go to Boris's speech (or the current live feed if you're just seeing this - I clicked off of it).

"Terrifyling limbless chickens" (makes stupid hand movement)

Facepalm doesn't quite cover it.

They are probably wishing they could pass a resolution to ban him from speaking at the un ever again, and to withdraw his permission to come to ny -- even more urhently than zarif.

And trump's probably wishing he didn't defend him earlier... "I can see why everyone hates this guy. Sad bad sick and great guy!"
#15036192
skinster wrote:Habibti @Tainari88



:D



He speaks beautiful Spanish Skinster. He is extremely fluent. Piers is a fool. Lol.
#15036217
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1176572513368924161?s=20

"People before privlige", what a pathetic joke. Why is abolition of the monarchy not in Labour's manifesto?
#15036220
Rich wrote:"People before privlige", what a pathetic joke. Why is abolition of the monarchy not in Labour's manifesto?

I wonder if abolition of private schools is too radical of them. :lol:
#15036223
I think Corbyn's speech at the party conference wasn't bad at all. He said all the right things. With all the things he is promising, he is in full election campaign mode. The only downside is that there is no way to finance his election promises. I don't know if that is off-putting to voters in the UK or if that is expected of campaigners.

Still, let's not forget that Johnson is best when campaigning.
#15036225
Atlantis wrote:I think Corbyn's speech at the party conference wasn't bad at all. He said all the right things. With all the things he is promising, he is in full election campaign mode. The only downside is that there is no way to finance his election promises. I don't know if that is off-putting to voters in the UK or if that is expected of campaigners.

Still, let's not forget that Johnson is best when campaigning.


Meh none of them can finance their campaign promises. It's nothing new at all to be honest.

New Labour got in partly cos they promised to match Tory spending plans for iirc the first 3 years(?) And that meant that Harriet Harperson cut disability benefits, and hospitals were closed in 97.

There was no need for that rubbish.

The whole lie about "having to have" a surplus is a myth.
#15036226
Presvias wrote:The whole lie about "having to have" a surplus is a myth.


Beyond a debt/GDP ratio of 100%, it can become very expensive to finance debts. The current low-interest phase isn't going to last forever. When interests do go up, it'll be highly indebted countries that go bust first.

To make election promises that can't be kept undermines trust in the institutions of democracy.
#15036227
That's the flipside of the coin.

IMHO both extremes are pointless. It's best to maximise spending with maybe a bit of headroom, as was the case in roughly 2001/2 in this country.

Wtf is the point in having loads of surplus cash when OAPs are freezing to death in their own homes (which is what happened in the early-mid 90s and it's made a comeback since 2010).
#15036237
Actually I would be content with the ending of "The oath of allegiance" and a statement in the manifesto condemning Monarchical privilege but accepting there is insufficient support for abolition at the monarchy for the foreseeable future.

Why do I not make this demand of the Conservatives, Lib-Dems, DUP or Scottish Nationalists, because they are open establishment parties. UKIP, the Brexit Party and Corbyn's labour party claim to be radical anti elitist privilege parties. Hence condemnation of the monarchy and ending of the vote of allegiance for those parties is non negotiable
#15036239
Rich wrote:Actually I would be content with the ending of "The oath of allegiance" and a statement in the manifesto condemning Monarchical privilege but accepting there is insufficient support for abolition at the monarchy for the foreseeable future.

Why do I not make this demand of the Conservatives, Lib-Dems, DUP or Scottish Nationalists, because they are open establishment parties. UKIP, the Brexit Party and Corbyn's labour party claim to be radical anti elitist privilege parties. Hence condemnation of the monarchy and ending of the vote of allegiance for those parties is non negotiable


Parliament would not have authority without the oath of allegience. They would just be a bunch of blowhards whom anyone with any self respect will simply ignore including the army and police.
#15036244
^ That speech was good:
1. not boring
2. witty
3. evocative
4. on point for the really big issues facing humanity in the near future

You are just being a labour tribalist. I would like to see you do a better speech.
#15036249
You're being a Tory tribalist, I never said it was boring and it is witty and evocative, it's also bizarre. But it's certainly not 'on point', that's Tory tribalism at its finest.

In fact, I've always commended his humour as one of his few redeeming qualities.

He just shouldn't be prime minister,that's all. He isn't even happy as PM; his forte was the classics and I'm sure I'd have no problem with him in a different context.
#15036265
Presvias wrote:IMHO both extremes are pointless. It's best to maximise spending with maybe a bit of headroom, as was the case in roughly 2001/2 in this country.

Wtf is the point in having loads of surplus cash when OAPs are freezing to death in their own homes (which is what happened in the early-mid 90s and it's made a comeback since 2010).


Just to clarify a point. The aim of a government isn't to create a surplus it is to balance the books (not increase the deficit). Sure you can borrow to invest occasionally but what use is over borrowing to solve a non profitable problem today that will most definitely return and be worse in the future because you borrowed yesteryear? And unfortunately that is why capitalism is on borrowed time. QE cannot work everytime and no government ever plans on creating a surplus and always promises pledges they cannot afford. If you want the perks you need to decide what you are willing to sacrifice for it. Be it in taxes or other services. :roll:

Mock Swinson if you like, but at least your country isn't going bust with her in charge.
#15036268
Help me see the point in the Prometheus thing, please. It's like his liver represents Brexit always stolen by an eagle (Germany-Merkel-EU?), however, Prometheus wasn't supposed to deliver a liver, was he? He was simply punished that way. :?:
#15036269
B0ycey wrote:Just to clarify a point. The aim of a government isn't to create a surplus it is to balance the books (not increase the deficit)


A point that you eminently did not get: the Tories expressly wish to create a surplus; they said so. All they care about is money as everyone knows..

Sure you can borrow to invest occasionally but what use is over borrowing to solve a non profitable problem today that will most definitely return and be worse in the future because you borrowed yesteryear? And unfortunately that is why capitalism is on borrowed time. QE cannot work everytime and no government ever plans on creating a surplus and always promises pledges they cannot afford. If you want the perks you need to decide what you are willing to sacrifice for it. Be it in taxes or other services. :roll:

Mock Swinson if you like, but at least your country isn't going bust with her in charge.


I thought you were from the UK.

Not that it matters, you are perfectly entitled to your views.

Simply cutting things can negatively affect growth as attested to by the IMF, OECD and EU's impugnation of Tory austerity. So your view is incomplete. We had a double dip recession. Also, raising taxes can sometimes reduce the actual tax receipts if accountants catch up with the latest loopholes and shunt money offshore en masse; it's not as simple as you make out.

The best thing to do would be to collect the unpaid taxes that already go uncollected, and stop paying off the private sector to inefficiently run public services. The railways spring to mind..no.idea how familiar you are with their operation. Also, the digital services tax and the mass anti avoidance rule that the EU put into effect were very good initiatives. The UK billionaires partly support brexit to escape the clutches of this EU law.

It is, however, very curious to hear a 'socialist' Europhile extolling the virtues of austerity.

There is no reason to expect that Swinson will 'balance the books' (running a deficit is encouraged by the EU - so you were slightly off point there - IIRC it's recommended not to go above 3%), she changes her mind constantly as I proved to you in the EU Brexit thread, you know she's no good. ;)

And she stands virtually no chance of becoming PM anyway, so your point is moot.

I'm not sure why you have such admiration for her, and why others do. It frankly puzzles me. :hmm:
#15036270
SolarCross wrote:Parliament would not have authority without the oath of allegience. They would just be a bunch of blowhards whom anyone with any self respect will simply ignore including the army and police.


The vote counts for nothing?

Good to see the antidemocratic hard-right outing itself. No more need for pretense. The next thing you lot will want is a military coup against parliament, ie. against the sovereign.

Traitors be hanged!
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 43

Katie Pavlich Ties ABC’s Epstein Cover-up To C[…]

Why I am a Materialist Christian

Recalling Dante and his spiritual understanding, […]

Why the national debt of the USA grew

@SueDeNîmes , Well, I'm pretty sure that everyone[…]

“Iceworm”

Never said they were, but you know that. Yeah, […]