chrisp65 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) the resignation letter in full Edited March 18, 2016 by chrisp65 credit to David Schneider for that one 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 This is brilliant You honestly couldn't make it up. IDS resigning? I mean how bad has it got to be? Its like Lance Armstrong coming out against drug cheats like 'you know I was all ok with a bit of EPO, but this new steroid shit is a step too far' They are unravelling, the tide is turning....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Xann said: Why the change of heart Iain? Was it... a. He finally asked his daughters why they were spitting at him? b. He was visited by 3 spirits in the night? c. He's not quite ready to be a full time ponce? d. Other d. Other: Yurp referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: It's an internal tory plot, they're all words removed, they're just fighting over who will be top word removed in July Slightly OT but this is why i think Boris is part of the out campaign. Its not Pro euro vs Euro sceptic, its simply Cameron vs Boris for the top job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: the resignation letter in full To quote blackadder "it started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better — but apart from that it was excellent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, av1 said: Slightly OT but this is why i think Boris is part of the out campaign. Its not Pro euro vs Euro sceptic, its simply Cameron vs Boris for the top job. Cameron is standing down and is out the picture in July if we vote to leave and probably 12 to 18 months if we vote to stay.... Osborne was looking likely for the keys to number 10 ... Boris with a bit of help from IDS has probably just scuppered those chances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 18, 2016 Share Posted March 18, 2016 2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: For me, there's been one sort of government since Reagan/Thatcher - I've no real interest in the colour of a mans tie or his rosette - I hate Blair and I'd like to see him hang, I hate Cameron, I hated Major and I despise Thatcher. I'm basically not a big fan of Neo-Liberalism or corporatism and politics in this country has been based entirely on that philosophy since 1979, regardless of red or blue - I'm a big fan of Mr Corbyn, I like him - if Labour replaced him with someone more Blair, I'd go back to disliking both parties. The whole finger pointing, "It was them, No, it was them" is what has put a generation of people off politics - two identical parties shouting at each other about nothing in particular - was it Blairs fault? Yes. Was it Thatchers fault? Yes Is there a better way? Absolutely. What's strange is that the re-emergence of socialism after 30 odd years seems to have driven the neo-liberals into a fury of actions so despicable that even they are starting to struggle to live with them. Corbyn beating a couple of deadbeats for the labour leadership is hardly the re-emergence of socialism , and I'd still be surprised if he wins in 2020 , even if the Tory party look like they are going to implode (again) over the coming months or years ... Ed went slightly left at the last election and lost , apart from Twitter users and students who sleep in and forget to vote anyway there just isn't an appetite for a left / socialist government in this country On the plus side you have a few years to prepare yourself for disliking both parties 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 19, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2016 10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Corbyn beating a couple of deadbeats for the labour leadership is hardly the re-emergence of socialism , and I'd still be surprised if he wins in 2020 , even if the Tory party look like they are going to implode (again) over the coming months or years ... Ed went slightly left at the last election and lost , apart from Twitter users and students who sleep in and forget to vote anyway there just isn't an appetite for a left / socialist government in this country On the plus side you have a few years to prepare yourself for disliking both parties I think you're wrong, there's no appetite in the media for socialism and they have a massive impact on how voters feel, but there's a definite feeling across lots of countries that corporatism has gone too far in favour of the super rich - it's there in Corbyn (who currently leads in the polls), it's in Bernie Sanders, it's in Podemas, it's in Syriza, it's there in a lot of countries - it's opposed by the papers, by TV and by those who have a controlling interest in what we read and are fed as news, but there are definite signs that it's poking through - people are talking about politics again. Where you are right I think is in the UK election - the good thing about the current government falling to bits on the debris of their own evil is that it will allow for a new leader to come in after the referendum, embrace whatever the result is, make sure Murdoch and the papers are happy, keep their thumb over the BBC and look stately enough to get re-elected - the Conservatives (or Labour depending on whether they can get a candidate in that plays the game) have plenty of time to ensure that our oligarchy is maintained. Personally I hope that doesn't happen - I believe that the role of 21st century government is to protect the people it represents and the services they pay for from the greed of corporate interest and I don't think that the current iteration of Thatcherites could be any further from that ideal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Corbyn beating a couple of deadbeats for the labour leadership is hardly the re-emergence of socialism , and I'd still be surprised if he wins in 2020 , even if the Tory party look like they are going to implode (again) over the coming months or years ... Ed went slightly left at the last election and lost , apart from Twitter users and students who sleep in and forget to vote anyway there just isn't an appetite for a left / socialist government in this country On the plus side you have a few years to prepare yourself for disliking both parties By the time this government has finished dismantling anything left that is remotely socialist voters attitudes may change at last when they realise what socialism is. When there is no NHS and they find out that Bronze Standard private insurance won't cover their hip operation without a 5K excess fee, when there is no state pension whatsoever and when workers rights are completely trashed (zero hour contracts) in favour of corporations. When the welfare state is whittled down to the bone, apart from rich land-owner subsidies, then finally people will wake up to the fact that a hundred years of struggle to drag living standards out of the gutter are being eroded by this wonderful Neo-conservatism/liberalsim and that trickle-down economics is BS. The greatest achievement the Tories have made is convincing ordinary people that they have their best interest at heart while secretly loathing them, also their pretence that they are fiscally competent when all they have ever done is sell as much family silver as possible to their Eton chums to prop things up. Osbourne has failed miserably as Chancellor and has borrowed more money than any other in history (and some). The only reason we have and growth is through mass immigration (which is why it won't be stopped) and a housing bubble (which will explode soon). Yanis Varoufakis is going to be advising on Labour's economic policy. I'd rather him with his MSc in Mathematical Statistics and PhD in Economics have a say than Osbourne with his 2:1 in History. Still, people are generally stupid so I won't hold my breath. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think you're wrong, there's no appetite in the media for socialism and they have a massive impact on how voters feel, but there's a definite feeling across lots of countries that corporatism has gone too far in favour of the super rich - it's there in Corbyn (who currently leads in the polls), it's in Bernie Sanders, it's in Podemas, it's in Syriza, it's there in a lot of countries - it's opposed by the papers, by TV and by those who have a controlling interest in what we read and are fed as news, but there are definite signs that it's poking through - people are talking about politics again. Where you are right I think is in the UK election - the good thing about the current government falling to bits on the debris of their own evil is that it will allow for a new leader to come in after the referendum, embrace whatever the result is, make sure Murdoch and the papers are happy, keep their thumb over the BBC and look stately enough to get re-elected - the Conservatives (or Labour depending on whether they can get a candidate in that plays the game) have plenty of time to ensure that our oligarchy is maintained. Personally I hope that doesn't happen - I believe that the role of 21st century government is to protect the people it represents and the services they pay for from the greed of corporate interest and I don't think that the current iteration of Thatcherites could be any further from that ideal. The media line is interesting as here on VT years and years ago in a thread not dissimilar to this one it was argued by quite a few of VT's Tory hating none labour voting members that it wasn't the sun "wot won it" and that he (Murdoch) didn't have any influence .... Has Murdoch now become all powerful as he sought to do , or is the media influence still being overblown ? P.S Podemas achieved 21% of the vote in the last election , even UKIP managed 27% over here ....Sanders is getting defeated last I looked and quoting the socialist Ba'ath party in Syria is probably not a ringing endorsement either 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 6 minutes ago, Shaw_nuff said: By the time this government has finished dismantling anything left that is remotely socialist voters attitudes may change at last when they realise what socialism is. When there is no NHS and they find out that Bronze Standard private insurance won't cover their hip operation without a 5K excess fee, when there is no state pension whatsoever and when workers rights are completely trashed (zero hour contracts) in favour of corporations. When the welfare state is whittled down to the bone, apart from rich land-owner subsidies, then finally people will wake up to the fact that a hundred years of struggle to drag living standards out of the gutter are being eroded by this wonderful Neo-conservatism/liberalsim and that trickle-down economics is BS. The greatest achievement the Tories have made is convincing ordinary people that they have their best interest at heart while secretly loathing them, also their pretence that they are fiscally competent when all they have ever done is sell as much family silver as possible to their Eton chums to prop things up. Osbourne has failed miserably as Chancellor and has borrowed more money than any other in history (and some). The only reason we have and growth is through mass immigration (which is why it won't be stopped) and a housing bubble (which will explode soon). If you say it enough times I guess you can convince yourself it must be true 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: If you say it enough times I guess you can convince yourself it must be true Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Imagine for a second that a group of aliens landed on Earth. You were to describe what 'socialism' means to them, as they had no previous concept of such. The first thing that you would go to is a centralized, collective budget that shares it's money for whatever the government deems necessary. This money obviously comes from taxes (our pockets, as the government has NO money but that of your own). You would then probably describe government funded institutions, such as schools, hospitals and other government based initiatives. They are all based on taking money from one person, and giving to another. You can therefore have an old, rather poor lady living in Manchester paying an extra 20p on a litre of milk simply because government deems it necessary for a new set of solar panel bins in Devon (as the council has lobbied for such). What happens, and what the essence of socialism is, is taking money from one person and giving to another. You could of course argue that this process has a public mandate - afterall, there is a democratic process. Yet if you asked that old lady whether she is happy for the extra 20p to be taken from her pocket, I think the answer would be rather different. What I'm trying to get at here, is that no matter how pretty the Torries or Labourists try to serve it, we live in a socialist state. Great Britain, along with a majority of Europe is socialist. And guess what? Europe has never been is such deep financial problems as it is now. The reason for that, is that in order for the Devon solar power bins to be built, the old lady has to pay 20p extra on her milk. Yet, only a fraction of that money will go toward the bins themselves, A big chunk will get lost in a wasteful way, in order to fund councillors, the environment comissioners and the people in London. The old lady pays to fund a living for all those involved in the process, wasting her resources which she could spend more freely in a system that does not tax her in order to fund it's political propaganda. What we need is more freedom. More money in the government (i.e. more money in the budget) means less money in the old ladies pocket. It also means less money in YOUR pocket. And tell me when will the nation be better off? When the government takes away 20%/40% or even 45% of your own money in order to build what THEY seem necessary, or if that money stayed in your pocket so that you could spend it however you seem right, i.e. help the local community by funding stuff directly, without mr/mrs politician taking the money from you and doing what THEY seem right. England is a socialist state. And big corporations thrive on this, because the poorer businesses cannot compete when they are taxed so heavily that the bigger well established groups smash them out of the market. And guess what? Do you think it's the businesses paying any tax? No. If tax goes up, the business will not pay a penny extra - they will just charge the old lady a higher price in order to cover the cost of that tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 19, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted March 19, 2016 6 hours ago, Mic09 said: Imagine for a second that a group of aliens landed on Earth. You were to describe what 'socialism' means to them, as they had no idea.... England is a socialist state. And big corporations thrive on this, because the poorer businesses cannot compete when they are taxed so heavily that the bigger well established groups smash them out of the market. I don't mean to be picky, but socialism is where the means of production,( plus hospitals, schools, and all that) is owned and controlled by society, and capitalism is where it's owned privately and run to make money for those private owners. So when you next talk to your space alien friends ( remember to wear a tin foil hat) perhaps you could slightly adjust your theory in light of the facts? I know my words above come across as extremely rude, sorry, they're not meant to offend, but to point out the absurdity of your claim. England (the UK) is along way from a socialist state, though there are remnants, still of publicly owned and run "means of production and distribution" 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 hours ago, tonyh29 said: If you say it enough times I guess you can convince yourself it must be true Which argument do I find the most compelling? Not the Surrey one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 7 hours ago, Mic09 said: This money obviously comes from taxes (our pockets, as the government has NO money but that of your own). If you kick off your 'description' on this kind of footing then you're doing the aliens a disservice. Though your last comment about tax incidence (If tax goes up, the business will not pay a penny extra - they will just charge the old lady a higher price in order to cover the cost of that tax) is very close to spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Quote Buried On Budget Day... At 5:45pm while the political talking shop was in full swing and everyone else was heading home for the evening, Sky News quietly published an exclusive analysis of newly-released official data – and the findings are absolutely explosive. Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008. To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude. By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid. This gigantic loss is scandalous for the Chancellor and ruinous for the public purse, particularly given that the disabled and the poor are being made to disproportionately suffer from yet another £3.5 billion of cuts to public services – on top of the additional £12 billion announced last year. Move Your Money 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 A bit like Sanders in the states, Corbyn's popularity among the young is important. There is a generation, and will likely be another generation, of people who have not benefited from the dominant free market capitalism in the way their parents and grandparents did. There is a change coming, but it will take time to manifest itself into an election-winning force, because currently there are more people who have done OK under it than not and don't see a good reason for change. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Xann said: Which argument do I find the most compelling? Not the Surrey one. Well that hardly comes as a shock to anyone But I'm sure you'll agree the post was so indoctrinated it wasn't worth a rebuttal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 1 minute ago, tonyh29 said: But I'm sure you'll agree the post was so indoctrinated it wasn't worth a rebuttal You know what Tone? Too much of it rings true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts