Anyone who thinks I did this for money...

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

53 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Thanks KC. 

You still haven't answered the question though, in spite of the handy deflection there. Where is the evidence of the balance and moderation you claim?

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[cambridgeshire canary 6,717]

9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Could someone out there explain this to me please?

Well you see the biggest flaw with Labour right now is that quite frankly and honestly much as Keir is a decent bloke who's trying his best to keep the party sane and slighty left of centere the fact is that a lot of people who will be elected to the Labour goverment will have many thoughts, views and ideas that will very much go against what the majority of British people wish. For example not once has the British public ever wished for more immigration and yet we will soon be electing a Labour goverment that will no doubt be full of those who wish and will do what they can for their to be open borders and any anti immigration policies to be scrapped, for just one example. Of course the irony is that under the Tories immigration is has in fact hit record highs due to the Tories loving cheap free imported Labour and work as it does prop up this country and they don't want that to end but at least the Tories can pretend to be "tough on immigration" just as the majority of people in this country want the party in charge to be but fair to say Labour however will go full throttle and will not in any way pretend to be anti immigration and will be open about it, and once that hits the mail and express headlines that's all it will need for support for Labour to begin a slow decline.

Nevermind other issues such as trans rights which we have recently seen in Scotland to be a killer for parties and a way to really cause huge infighting and splits within parties and for them to fall apart and boy howdy I for one can't wait for all the newly elected far left loony MP's to be elected to Labour beacause it's going to be very, very entertaining to watch the party tear itself apart when it comes to left wing issues such as those which many polls have shown the majority of people think has already gone too far..

The main issue left wing parties have (which we have already seen with the far left Corbyn types vs the more centre Keir types) is that those on the left have a habbit of tearing each other apart and going to war with one another.

Labour might win in a landslide historic victory at the next general election but just like many others I don't think they will be riding a big popularity boost for very long once they start going on about the changes they wish to make to this country that much is clear.

Edited March 2, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You still haven't answered the question though, in spite of the handy deflection there. Where is the evidence of the balance and moderation you claim?

Stop being silly. Do you really want me to go through 15 years of posts to satisfy you?  I won't. 

I could perhaps help by saying I joined the Labour Party on the day that Starmer was elected as leader. I view him as a thoroughly decent man who is intellectually capable of leading the country. No one is perfect but he is the best we've had on either side of the fence in years. 

I'm still waiting for you to justify your support for Hancock which I suspect is a bit too much of a challenge. Of all the commentary I've heard this morning you are in a minority of one. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

17 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Stop being silly. Do you really want me to go through 15 years of posts to satisfy you?  I won't. 

I could perhaps help by saying I joined the Labour Party on the day that Starmer was elected as leader. I view him as a thoroughly decent man who is intellectually capable of leading the country. No one is perfect but he is the best we've had on either side of the fence in years. 

I'm still waiting for you to justify your support for Hancock which I suspect is a bit too much of a challenge. Of all the commentary I've heard this morning you are in a minority of one. 

I'm not being silly. You claimed to be moderate, but you're clearly not.

I already have gone through your posts as it happens searching for any reference to Stephen Byers, the Labour Lords, Keith Vaz, or any others. Nothing. The fact that forum search can be filtered by author makes it a quick process.

In the final analysis, Hancock has resigned and lost the Conservative whip, but you've gone out of your way to make a personal attack on him, even going as far as creating a whole thread to do it. That's just weird. There's a distinction between support for someone and rejection of puerile, gratuitous, unreasonable, excessive, and abusive personal character attacks.

Starmer is decent, but there's the same problem that Labour's a broad church as liable to veer off to an extreme in the future as it has in the past and open the door to another Conservative government once they've reabiliated themselves (which is what I meant with the statement that confused you).

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

He has a degree from Oxford and a masters from Cambridge. Nobody makes it through the courses on average intelligence.

Don't conflate knowledge with wisdom. I'm sure you've heard the quote "knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad". It's knowledge that gets you through the vast majority of academic qualifications, and it's your face, background and contacts that help you get those qualifications from Oxford and/or Cambridge.

It's touchingly naive that you think a degree from Oxbridge, or anywhere for that matter, is a mark of high intelligence.

[canarydan23 4,060]

47 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I already have gone through your posts as it happens searching for any reference to Stephen Byers, the Labour Lords, Keith Vaz, or any others. Nothing. The fact that forum search can be filtered by author makes it a quick process.

It may be a quick process, I'll defer to you on that one. But it is definitely a sad and pathetic process.

[Herman 9,764]

Distraction, dissembling, whataboutery and gaslighting. The whole gamut of right wing tactics used to die on Matt Hancock's hill. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Would say personally, as someone whose political stance has certainly shifted from centre-right to the centre since 2006 or so, that asking for consistency in application of disdain over a 15-year period strikes me as a little futile. Not to mention that people may have become more politically aware over the last few years due to the rank incompetence of the last few PMs.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

The alternative to Hancock being plain stupid is that he's a scheming revengeful type of person and knew full well what was in the messages when he gave them to Oakeshott.

Bringing all of them down with him (after all he's had the whip removed and is standing down at the next electron anyway) 🙂

Edited March 2, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'm not being silly. You claimed to be moderate, but you're clearly not.

I already have gone through your posts as it happens searching for any reference to Stephen Byers, the Labour Lords, Keith Vaz, or any others. Nothing. The fact that forum search can be filtered by author makes it a quick process.

In the final analysis, Hancock has resigned and lost the Conservative whip, but you've gone out of your way to make a personal attack on him, even going as far as creating a whole thread to do it. That's just weird. There's a distinction between support for someone and rejection of puerile, gratuitous, unreasonable, excessive, and abusive personal character attacks.

Starmer is decent, but there's the same problem that Labour's a broad church as liable to veer off to an extreme in the future as it has in the past and open the door to another Conservative government once they've reabiliated themselves (which is what I meant with the statement that confused you).

 

Because I'm clearly to the left of you politically doesn't make me left wing. I'm not and I have no time for what is often referred to as the Loony Left. In my mind they are just as dangerous as the far right of the Conservative Party.

There are a number of posters on this forum who are to the left of you but in no way could be considered left wing. They consistently challenge this Government, usually quite eloquently and for very good reason . 

I can see that it's difficult for you to understand, but not everyone who disagrees with you is left wing. 

The day ticks idly by and I've yet to hear anybody in any walk of life say anything complimentary about Hancock. In fact LBC have just told me that he released Government messages to a journalist without the permission of the other parties involved in the correspondence, some of whom were SCS. It beggars belief and in the view of LBC's legal expert he is in a rather difficult position. 

I think I'll stick with my original analysis of his nature and character however much it might upset you. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I remember Oakshott and Whelan being shot down during Covid by a Doctor who was seething that these two idiots purported to know science and virology and were railing against the vaccine. He really torn into them about over privileged know nothing but rumour journalists trying to tell the public that they shouldn't be vaccinated.

The Fourth Estate used to be a respected institution but is now nothing more than a vehicle for the knowalls to offer us their wonderful knowledge.

[ricardo 7,395]

Having read some of the messages I can't see where it throws any new light on the subject of the Covid lockdowns. The supposed experts appear to have had just as wide range of opinion as the non experts on the Pinkun thread when it came to tightening or loosening restrictions. Whatever path we steered was going to have some drawbacks and be open to criticism from those of the opposite opinion. Have a look at the Covid thread on here and you will see the extent of it.

Hanncock is certainly guilty of of being credulous in believing a Leopard like Oakshott would change her spots but that shouldn't be news to the rest of us. I thought Oakshott had already trashed her reputation over the Cameron pig thing but it seems some people never learn. Pretending this sort of nonsense is in the public interest as an excuse to break client confidentiality shows that she believes the golden rule of her trade to never reveal sources just doesn't apply to her.

An odious women and a disgrace to her profession.

[king canary 7,606]

3 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Well you see the biggest flaw with Labour right now is that quite frankly and honestly much as Keir is a decent bloke who's trying his best to keep the party sane and slighty left of centere the fact is that a lot of people who will be elected to the Labour goverment will have many thoughts, views and ideas that will very much go against what the majority of British people wish.

Sure but this is true of absolutely every government ever elected.

[king canary 7,606]

33 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Having read some of the messages I can't see where it throws any new light on the subject of the Covid lockdowns. The supposed experts appear to have had just as wide range of opinion as the non experts on the Pinkun thread when it came to tightening or loosening restrictions. Whatever path we steered was going to have some drawbacks and be open to criticism from those of the opposite opinion. Have a look at the Covid thread on here and you will see the extent of it.

Yes I felt similar. A lot of anti-lockdown extremists have been talking as if there is some great smoking gun here that shows it was all completely unnecessary but I've read nothing that suggests that.

[king canary 7,606]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It genuinely mystifies me how anyone can have more respect for either Labour and the Conservatives than they do the Lib Dems.

My general Lib Dem scepticism stems somewhat from the fact I voted for them in 2010 (my first GE) and watched them promptly bin a major manifesto pledge that they won my vote on (not raising tuition fees). I've not seen anything from them to win me back. 

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

36 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Pretending this sort of nonsense is in the public interest as an excuse to break client confidentiality shows that she believes the golden rule of her trade to never reveal sources just doesn't apply to her.

An odious women and a disgrace to her profession.

She did the same thing with Vicky Price who ended up going to jail.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

Anybody who thinks or says that the EDP's 'local democracy charlatan reporter' would have made any money for Archant, by spreading this poor story nationwide would be wholly right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-11771879/Jet-black-house-likened-James-Bond-villains-lair-sparks-fury-neighbours.html

1. what was called fury and outrage is made up, the people who live in this self sufficient home generating its own electricity, are well respective members of the locality.

2. It says more about the power of story telling that it does represent decent balanced journalism.

3. It is regrettable that this story went further than the bin next to the desk of this wannabe second rate scribe.

End off.

[ricardo 7,395]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes I felt similar. A lot of anti-lockdown extremists have been talking as if there is some great smoking gun here that shows it was all completely unnecessary but I've read nothing that suggests that.

Everyone was acting within a factual vaccum with this new virus so it shouldn't surprise anyone that mistakes were made. Nobody is going to come out of this with a ten out of ten score.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Everyone was acting within a factual vaccum with this new virus so it shouldn't surprise anyone that mistakes were made. Nobody is going to come out of this with a ten out of ten score.

No, but some will come out with much higher scores than others. I think we both know what end of the scale the UK Government will be on.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

My general Lib Dem scepticism stems somewhat from the fact I voted for them in 2010 (my first GE) and watched them promptly bin a major manifesto pledge that they won my vote on (not raising tuition fees). I've not seen anything from them to win me back. 

Small parties often make pledges that are realistically not achievable. They do it to get support and attention. When small parties start doing well with that sort of policy then the larger parties tend to adopt them.

So it was in the interests of students to back them on that to get the message across. At the same time, it's not reasonable to expect the lib Dems, as a minority party in parliament to deliver it with both Labour and the Conservatives set against it; nobody has a very long memory over Labour and Conservative broken pledges in majority government.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

My general Lib Dem scepticism stems somewhat from the fact I voted for them in 2010 (my first GE) and watched them promptly bin a major manifesto pledge that they won my vote on (not raising tuition fees). I've not seen anything from them to win me back. 

That was their 'big chance' to break through & deliver yet they blew it.

Then we had Farron (please keep 'faith' out of politics) and well yes it's a long way back.

Now Labour are looking very electable and are parked squarely on the centre (left) ground. I rather suspect the LDs will do well next election but will have to concentrate on taking 'blue wall' seats with Labour/Green connivance - especially Johnson's

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Having read some of the messages I can't see where it throws any new light on the subject of the Covid lockdowns. The supposed experts appear to have had just as wide range of opinion as the non experts on the Pinkun thread when it came to tightening or loosening restrictions. Whatever path we steered was going to have some drawbacks and be open to criticism from those of the opposite opinion. Have a look at the Covid thread on here and you will see the extent of it.

Hanncock is certainly guilty of of being credulous in believing a Leopard like Oakshott would change her spots but that shouldn't be news to the rest of us. I thought Oakshott had already trashed her reputation over the Cameron pig thing but it seems some people never learn. Pretending this sort of nonsense is in the public interest as an excuse to break client confidentiality shows that she believes the golden rule of her trade to never reveal sources just doesn't apply to her.

An odious women and a disgrace to her profession.

There is a theory abroad that this non story was released to cover up any further talk about Sunak's success with the EU. 

[Herman 9,764]

24 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

There is a theory abroad that this non story was released to cover up any further talk about Sunak's success with the EU. 

I had thought that. The usual gang of reprobates and sordid journalists trying to scupper Sunak's win. His poll ratings would have been boosted on monday, down by thursday.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Herman

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

All the more reason why Hancock would basically do a Cummings, right?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

Sure but this is true of absolutely every government ever elected.

It is, which is another reason why electoral reform should be higher up every individual's agenda in the UK.

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

That was their 'big chance' to break through & deliver yet they blew it.

Then we had Farron (please keep 'faith' out of politics) and well yes it's a long way back.

Now Labour are looking very electable and are parked squarely on the centre (left) ground. I rather suspect the LDs will do well next election but will have to concentrate on taking 'blue wall' seats with Labour/Green connivance - especially Johnson's

They didn't blow it. The cuts the coalition oversaw were less than those in the 2010 Labour manifesto and they introduced a whole raft of successful and popular policies in coalition. If Labour had had the sense to give them credit where it was due instead of indulging in their usual pantomime bullsh1t, the Lib Dems might have done better at the next election instead of the Conservatives getting the boost from the credit for those successes and being rewarded with a majority in 2015.

And then you wouldn't still be moaning day after day about the referendum.

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Small parties often make pledges that are realistically not achievable. They do it to get support and attention. When small parties start doing well with that sort of policy then the larger parties tend to adopt them.

So it was in the interests of students to back them on that to get the message across. At the same time, it's not reasonable to expect the lib Dems, as a minority party in parliament to deliver it with both Labour and the Conservatives set against it; nobody has a very long memory over Labour and Conservative broken pledges in majority government.

 

For someone who has banged on and on about the need for electoral reform (PR) to improve standards in parliament, it's rather hilarious to see you then say that one shouldn't expect small parties to keep any of their promises once they achieve influence. Yep! That should restore faith in our democracy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

For someone who has banged on and on about the need for electoral reform (PR) to improve standards in parliament, it's rather hilarious to see you then say that one shouldn't expect small parties to keep any of their promises once they achieve influence. Yep! That should restore faith in our democracy.

Okay genius, you tell me how a minority party gets a policy through parliament without votes from the Conservative or Labour?

If they'd got a majority then it's fair enough to hold them to account for it, like few people seem to do with Labour or the Conservatives for their broken promises in majority government.

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[king canary 7,606]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Small parties often make pledges that are realistically not achievable. They do it to get support and attention. When small parties start doing well with that sort of policy then the larger parties tend to adopt them.

So it was in the interests of students to back them on that to get the message across. At the same time, it's not reasonable to expect the lib Dems, as a minority party in parliament to deliver it with both Labour and the Conservatives set against it; nobody has a very long memory over Labour and Conservative broken pledges in majority government.

 

The problem is they weren't talking about getting a new policy passed. The exact wording of the pledge Clegg and several other Lib Dems were happily photographed holding was 'I will vote against any proposed increase in tuition fees.' Something they could easily have stuck to. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

The problem is they weren't talking about getting a new policy passed. The exact wording of the pledge Clegg and several other Lib Dems were happily photographed holding was 'I will vote against any proposed increase in tuition fees.' Something they could easily have stuck to. 

Presumably you're planning to vote Labour at the next election?

I was one of the lucky ones who got under the net in 1997 and had tuition fees paid by the state.

Labour told people it would not introduce tuition fees in 1997 in interviews, although it wasn't in the manifesto. This proved to be a lie when they introduced tuition fees in 1998.

2001 commitment not to introduce top-up fees in majority government; they introduced them subsequently. Another Labour lie. http://labourmanifesto.com/2001/2001-labour-manifesto.shtml

2005 had more lies about tuition fees.

I understand that tuition fees were important to you at that time, but they're not now, and yet you still choose to hold it against them as a minority party in a coalition for not scrapping them in contrast to letting it slide that the Labour party repeatedly lied on the topic of tuition fees, which was the cause of them being there in the first place when you were studying.

And yet I understand why you're contemplating voting Labour: Because they're less sh1t than the Conservatives. This is why both Labour and the Conservatives get away with lying to the public again and again and still finish up back in government.

Supposedly, there's always an urgent reason to 'stop the Tories' at each election, yet a large chunk of the time you get majority Conservative governments because that's one of the two options that dominate our skewed system. 'Stop the Tories' is purely a Labour con; PR will stop the Tories by making it next door to impossible for them to command a majority.

This is ultimately why Labour can take people like yourself for mugs by preventing you having any choice other than them if you're not happy with the Conservatives, regardless of the fact that you may have reservations, or maybe even objections, about some Labour policies.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie