Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

The plan to raise retirement age to 75 isn't going down too well in Glasgow, where the average male life expectancy is 73.

Bismarck had a more liberal social policy.

Tush, tax cuts for the wealthy don't come free.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, peterms said:

The plan to raise retirement age to 75 isn't going down too well in Glasgow, where the average male life expectancy is 73.

Bismarck had a more liberal social policy.

74.5 where I live.

Tantalisingly close.

Same old rich boys, always thieving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, peterms said:

The plan to raise retirement age to 75 isn't going down too well in Glasgow, where the average male life expectancy is 73.

Bismarck had a more liberal social policy.

I think Blackpool is 73 as well. 

That surprises me. I thought it would be about 50. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Xann said:

Tush, tax cuts for the wealthy don't come free.

You're right, I forgot some basics.

Reducing tax for the wealthy actually leads to more tax being collected.

The rich create wealth, not gather it in from others.

Wealth will trickle down from the richest and we will all be better off.

A rising tide lifts all yachts.

I shall write a letter of apology to Mr Johnson,  and make a good act of contrition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Channel 4 News has said that Downing Street froze it out of a planned interview at the G7 summit because of criticism of Boris Johnson by the channel’s head of news, who had described him as a “known liar” and a “coward”.

According to the editor of Channel 4 News, Ben de Pear, a team of journalists had flown to Biarritz after being invited but Downing Street advisers then said Dorothy Byrne’s criticism of the prime minister had resulted in access being denied.

He added that the programme was “looking for clarity” after Johnson was said to have suggested the lack of access was due to a shortage of time.

The row follows a warning last week by Byrne, Channel 4’s head of news and current affairs, that politicians including Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were adopting the tactics of Donald Trump by declining to appear on major news programmes to subject themselves to scrutiny.

In a speech at the Edinburgh television festival, she asked: “Here is what we all need to decide: what do we do when a known liar becomes our prime minister?”

 

Grauniad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2019 at 19:40, peterms said:

The plan to raise retirement age to 75 isn't going down too well in Glasgow, where the average male life expectancy is 73.

Bismarck had a more liberal social policy.

That's ok , the SNP can purchase all our surplus unicorns once Brexit is over and Sturgeon can have her Scottish independence and soon male expectancy will raise into the 100's in Glasgow

 

but i was under the impression it was a Think tank suggesting it , I missed the part where the Tory's have implemented it or even suggested it will be implemented

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

That's ok , the SNP can purchase all our surplus unicorns once Brexit is over and Sturgeon can have her Scottish independence and soon male expectancy will raise into the 100's in Glasgow

 

but i was under the impression it was a Think tank suggesting it , I missed the part where the Tory's have implemented it or even suggested it will be implemented

You're not familiar with the tactic of flying a kite to sound out strength of opinion on a potentially unpopular policy via a friendly third party?  Get away.

Or you think this is actually an independent think tank, rather than the creature of a former tory leader?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

You're not familiar with the tactic of flying a kite to sound out strength of opinion on a potentially unpopular policy via a friendly third party?  Get away.

Or you think this is actually an independent think tank, rather than the creature of a former tory leader?

Some Tory MP was actually quoted on this I think it may have been Irritable Bowel-Smith and his reasoning as I recall was to assist people who wanted to work past the current retirement age, which was (unchallenged as usual) preposterous bollocks as there is nothing compelling people to stop working now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

You're not familiar with the tactic of flying a kite to sound out strength of opinion on a potentially unpopular policy via a friendly third party?  Get away.

Or you think this is actually an independent think tank, rather than the creature of a former tory leader?

I'm also familiar with VT reactions and numerous other ideas that have never made it to policy 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'm also familiar with VT reactions and numerous other ideas that have never made it to policy 

 

Best to tackle things like this while they are merely on a Tory wet dream wish list, rather than after they are a fait accompli. As a previous poster said, they are testing the water. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, meregreen said:

As a previous poster said, they are testing the water

Hopefully they read the results incorrectly and they push ahead with it, f**k Brexit, that really might kill them off for good. they'd be attacking their core support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Expression, Pre‐Crime and Counter‐Terrorism Legislation

 

(Full article on link - free for a month before it goes behind a paywall)

Quote

Abstract

This article examines the Counter‐Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and how this new piece of legislation undermines fundamental human rights, including those protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It considers in particular how the new act criminalises behaviour with a wide sweep, to include behaviour that is not in itself criminal, but might be indicative of future criminal intent. As a result, the act restricts the right to freedom of speech and to liberty in a manner that is neither necessary nor proportionate.

...

Conclusion

The journey to Royal Assent for the Counter‐Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 was smooth sailing. With the exception of a few moments in the House of Lords, none of these issues were seriously debated, and opposition to the bill was nominal. In the main, as is so often the case with terrorism‐related legislation, parliamentarians responded to rhetoric about ‘radical new threats’ by handing over a blank cheque. The UK government has used such tactics before to deter scrutiny and silence dissent. In the first decade after the 9/11 attacks in New York, the UK government continually evoked the rhetoric of ‘public emergency’, to such a degree that a committee of the House of Lords publicly rebuked the government for hyperbole, citing a ‘deleterious effect on public debate about the justification for counter‐terrorism measures’.20 Similarly today, claims of radical evolution in the threat environment are advanced to dissuade lawmakers from critiquing the stale quality of the government’s strategy, demanding an evidentiary basis for claims of necessity, or questioning whether new sacrifices of liberty and the rule of law are justified. Free speech and liberty are not traded for security, but merely lost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Best to tackle things like this while they are merely on a Tory wet dream wish list, rather than after they are a fait accompli. As a previous poster said, they are testing the water. 

There is a whole heap of difference from testing the water to passing into law  , at present there is zero evidence to suggest its going to be the case  , I think you can divert your angst back to the Brexit thread for now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

When the next Jo Cox inevitably happens, the Conservative Party can consider themselves as accessories to it.

I expect they have thought about this, and have concluded that a murder is extremely unlikely, but that a wave of lower level intimidation will occur and is to be welcomed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â