Gonzo's Erection Thread

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Thanks to Corbyn the far right Tories and their puppet May will now have to shove their plans for a cliff edge hard Brexit in the skip.

They'll seek to extend the 2 year deadline imo, and kick this debacle into the long grass where it belongs

legally they cannot. there is a legally binding process at play. 2 years is ticking.

We are not the USA. we cannot rip up every single agreement we made in 8 years and just say so what. They will get theirs but right now I'm more concerned brexit will end up as a 2 years no agreed deal and you are looking at europe saying well.... we are electing the Parliament now and you are out of it and can deal with wto tariffs.

 

[astro]

Do yoy really think an extra say 4/5bil a year in budget and assurance that sin fein get no ballots on anything for a while wont buy off those 10 votes? As in what do you think the dup will do if thry are bribed enough from your perspective?

They want the abortion law changed

 

[Rubbersoul]

True lol...

But he isnt even a good one..he just sounds better because we are all sick of the status quo.

I want a Labour leader who will actually deliver.

How do you know that he wont deliver? The only way it can be down with Labour in power.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

They want the abortion law changed

In ni... or in uk though...

 

[astro]

In ni... or in uk though...

It's already illegal in NI so I assume UK

 

[Tobes]

legally they cannot. there is a legally binding process at play. 2 years is ticking.

We are not the USA. we cannot rip up every single agreement we made in 8 years and just say so what. They will get theirs but right now I'm more concerned brexit will end up as a 2 years no agreed deal and you are looking at europe saying well.... we are electing the Parliament now and you are out of it and can deal with wto tariffs.

Legally they can, provided the EU agree to the extension, which is what will happen imo, as it'll suit all parties both politically and economically

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

Theresa May's resignation speech

You must log in or register to see media

Saw that last night. She did it again - she's asked a question about, say empathy: she just robotically spouts the same line over and over again. Think Frankie Boyle summed her up perfectly last night.

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

The manifesto added up, the variables were the actual GDP throughout the parliament and the estimates of how much would be raised by clamping down on tax avoidance and increased corporation tax.

The Tories have overseen austerity whilst at the same time increasing the national debt by £700BN. They've been a ****ing economic disaster

The only figures in the Tory manifesto were the page numbers. Look, even Warren Buffet has been saying for nine years since the crash that austerity doesn't work - it didn't in the 30's, in the 50's or the 80's. He, the second richest man in the world, advocates reflating the economy by taxing the richest and investing in infrastructue, similar to FDR and the New Deal.

Austerity is the fetish of neo-liberals like Minford, and remember that he is the **** who stated that if the UK was to lose its industrial base (which it has, in real terms since he started advised a willing acolyte in Thatcher) that it would be a good thing.

But here's the final thought about the magic money tree, austerity and the still growing national debt - how does the 'market' always get held up as the most efficient way to do things when four of the TMA of this tower paid themselves £650k a year to do a job a £30k a year council clerk with NEBOSH diploma could do? They didn't pay themselves this money for the responsibility - they're already bleating that they only followed the regulations, so if it's just a clerical join the dots job, then why £650K a year?

This is going on all over public services in education, health (especially), social care and, of course as I'm wont to perpetually bleat, in my area of the railways. Public sector workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters are fobbed off with 1% pay rises and vapid lectures of magic money trees, but consultants (usually Tory-supporting) come in on eye-watering fees and salaries wearing the Emperor's New Clothes. It's like sending a squadron of Boris Johnsons out to a famine to eat what is left of the food.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

The only figures in the Tory manifesto were the page numbers. Look, even Warren Buffet has been saying for nine years since the crash that austerity doesn't work - it didn't in the 30's, in the 50's or the 80's. He, the second richest man in the world, advocates reflating the economy by taxing the richest and investing in infrastructue, similar to FDR and the New Deal.

Austerity is the fetish of neo-liberals like Minford, and remember that he is the **** who stated that if the UK was to lose its industrial base (which it has, in real terms since he started advised a willing acolyte in Thatcher) that it would be a good thing.

But here's the final thought about the magic money tree, austerity and the still growing national debt - how does the 'market' always get held up as the most efficient way to do things when four of the TMA of this tower paid themselves £650k a year to do a job a £30k a year council clerk with NEBOSH diploma could do? They didn't pay themselves this money for the responsibility - they're already bleating that they only followed the regulations, so if it's just a clerical join the dots job, then why £650K a year?

This is going on all over public services in education, health (especially), social care and, of course as I'm wont to perpetually bleat, in my area of the railways. Public sector workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters are fobbed off with 1% pay rises and vapid lectures of magic money trees, but consultants (usually Tory-supporting) come in on eye-watering fees and salaries wearing the Emperor's New Clothes. It's like sending a squadron of Boris Johnsons out to a famine to eat what is left of the food.

look... comparing the labour promises to the tories failure of a manifesto is just comparing bad to worse imo.

You are right about "austerity" it was actually... we will make you pay for the banks not that it balances the books. Balancing books is required, but the true austerity was INFLICTED to pay for banks.

And yes you are right the guys right at the very top are creaming it, never stopped creaming it and its different form the 30s or even the 80s in that those guys didn't lose a damned thing... not a house, not a car nothing.

At least in the 1930s they had the good grace to jump out the window of the ivory tower when they bankrupted it.

 

[FedLadSonOfAnfield]

The levels of superficiality in what this 'government' says to the press is ridiculous and people can see through and are completely sick off the bullshit redirection that they attempt to bat away every single legitimate question with which they believe makes them look good and strong but actually exposes them as totally incapable

 

[ademuzzy]

Well I'm in agreement with tobes and donga. I think corbyn will make an excellent leader. If the guy can get himself re elected to lead the Labour Party and gain seats in an election where the media were against him, then I'm sorry, but he clearly has the wisdom and demeanour to lead.

Even if it didn't work out it would Be far better than that pidgeon looking mother ****er currently PM

 

[FedLadSonOfAnfield]

Politicians at all levels, but particularly once elected as an MP are there to serve

This gets forgotten by a lot of them and it's an amnesia that mainly seems to be endemic in Tory MPs, particularly those who get to higher levels such as the cabinet, who believe or think they no longer have to serve and are there by some kind of obvious divine right, that they are god's gift and the country is lucky to have them

What we saw during the election and now during the aftermath of this disaster is that attitude playing out in public, the levels of condescension and lack of a sense of public duty are unreal

 

[BobbyD]

As for the question on Tories increasing the national debt, i'm not sure how i feel about the Tories and the economy.

Has austerity gone to far? possibly especially when you see how poorly it's being implemented and since our welfare is only a small percentage of our public spending.

We all hate the tax avoidance/evasion especially from the giant multi-nationals who get away with it and pay **** all back into the country, i think that will happen whoevers in charge. I will slam the Tories for creating an uncaring society (or is that because of social media and materialism), i hate how they are trying to privatise all our state assets (see royal mail, land registry) and i don't think they should be lowering taxes.

Economically they have been doing okay though when you compare our national deficit when they first came into power compared to what happened under labour.

Anyway the Tories have increased public revenue and reduced the deficit quite significantly. I don't think we can ignore that our national debt is getting higher and higher but at the same time the tories seem quite intent on more austerity which is already breaking people.

I'm not sure the below takes into account of inflation.

Okay boys... here is what will surprise you all.....

I personally think Labour should have been more responsible fiscally and made sure we saved as you should be saving during the good times and spending during the bad (so we are told) but you can't fully blame Labour for the amount of debt we are in. The recession didn't really make a big dent on our public revenue

FYI there has been a big increase in the UK revenue brought in by the Tories but also a big increase being spent nationally too considering how much our

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

I haven't looked year on year but where has made it so that we have a massive deficit compared to the good times:

The biggest rises from 2005 -> 2009 -> 2015 are in Other public services, Pensions, NHS and Social security.

between 2009 -> 2015
+41 billion in pensions
+25 billon in NHS
+14 billion on social security
+ 27 billion in other public services (most of this is accounting adjustments whereever that means)

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

As for the question on Tories increasing the national debt, i'm not sure how i feel about the Tories and the economy.

Has austerity gone to far? possibly especially when you see how poorly it's being implemented and since our welfare is only a small percentage of our public spending.

We all hate the tax avoidance/evasion especially from the giant multi-nationals who get away with it and pay **** all back into the country, i think that will happen whoevers in charge. I will slam the Tories for creating an uncaring society (or is that because of social media and materialism), i hate how they are trying to privatise all our state assets (see royal mail, land registry) and i don't think they should be lowering taxes.

Economically they have been doing okay though when you compare our national deficit when they first came into power compared to what happened under labour.

Anyway the Tories have increased public revenue and reduced the deficit quite significantly. I don't think we can ignore that our national debt is getting higher and higher but at the same time the tories seem quite intent on more austerity which is already breaking people.

I'm not sure the below takes into account of inflation.

The nation debt in 2010 was £1tn, £500bn of which was what was spent on saving the banks. What would the Tories have done different? Was it Labour's fault that our major banks over exposed themselves to bad debt in the US sub-prime market? Should they have regulated them more? Well, that we do know of how the Tories would have reacted - they voted against and opposed ANY efforts of bank regulation whilst they were in opposition. Now, given that over £300bn has been reclaimed fro the banks and by selling them off cut-price to jerks like Branson, that effectively means that the Tories have grown the national debt by £1tn to its current standing of £1.7tn. Well done austerity - you've certainly screwed firefighters and nurses, but all the consultants and 'outsourced' organisations that still feed off the magic money tree have done fantastically in these seven years.

Bobby, the facetious, trite comparisons with a household budget have demented the common man's perceptions of how the national budget is run. Where, for argument's sake, did the banks' bailout money and the Iraq war money come from if we are comparing the economy to your ma's purse, let alone the money to get through two world wars? If you can, read Henry Mintzberg, the economist who predicted the crash for ten years, and his seminal book Rebalancing Society.

It doesn't have to be this way.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

As for the question on Tories increasing the national debt, i'm not sure how i feel about the Tories and the economy.

Has austerity gone to far? possibly especially when you see how poorly it's being implemented and since our welfare is only a small percentage of our public spending.

We all hate the tax avoidance/evasion especially from the giant multi-nationals who get away with it and pay **** all back into the country, i think that will happen whoevers in charge. I will slam the Tories for creating an uncaring society (or is that because of social media and materialism), i hate how they are trying to privatise all our state assets (see royal mail, land registry) and i don't think they should be lowering taxes.

Economically they have been doing okay though when you compare our national deficit when they first came into power compared to what happened under labour.

Anyway the Tories have increased public revenue and reduced the deficit quite significantly. I don't think we can ignore that our national debt is getting higher and higher but at the same time the tories seem quite intent on more austerity which is already breaking people.

I'm not sure the below takes into account of inflation.

IMO theres a case for saying three things

1. The recession is as much new labours fault as the tories

2. someone had to fix the deficit (even if its not yet fixed) and no matter what dream land some on the left live in you cannot just borrow. thats italy and imo tha tplace is going to crash hard one day.

3. yes austerity prob did go too far by targetting easy victims for a tory government and left off the "captains of industry"

Its IMO rewriting history and ignoring the recession to say labour would have done much different.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

The nation debt in 2010 was £1tn, £500bn of which was what was spent on saving the banks. What would the Tories have done different? Was it Labour's fault that our major banks over exposed themselves to bad debt in the US sub-prime market? Should they have regulated them more? Well, that we do know of how the Tories would have reacted - they voted against and opposed ANY efforts of bank regulation whilst they were in opposition. Now, given that over £300bn has been reclaimed fro the banks and by selling them off cut-price to jerks like Branson, that effectively means that the Tories have grown the national debt by £1tn to its current standing of £1.7tn. Well done austerity - you've certainly screwed firefighters and nurses, but all the consultants and 'outsourced' organisations that still feed off the magic money tree have done fantastically in these seven years.

Bobby, the facetious, trite comparisons with a household budget have demented the common man's perceptions of how the national budget is run. Where, for argument's sake, did the banks' bailout money and the Iraq war money come from if we are comparing the economy to your ma's purse, let alone the money to get through two world wars? If you can, read Henry Mintzberg, the economist who predicted the crash for ten years, and his seminal book Rebalancing Society.

It doesn't have to be this way.

well new labour 1997 to 2010 suggests that tony and gordon has a wee bit to do with the recession and bank regulation.

I agree however the tories really would have done no different.

How corbyn would have done i dunno.. but i think we all know the iraq war bill would not be there. thats blairs bag.

THere would however be a school of thought that from 2010 to 2015 that debt was going up anyway and its how much it goes up is the question. just go pend and everything is all right and it could be 2.7 for all i know.

Put it this way. the crash was obvious to me in 2006 and i didn't buy a house and get saddled..... but there you go i paid more attention that either political party it seems.

 

[BobbyD]

The nation debt in 2010 was £1tn, £500bn of which was what was spent on saving the banks. What would the Tories have done different? Was it Labour's fault that our major banks over exposed themselves to bad debt in the US sub-prime market? Should they have regulated them more? Well, that we do know of how the Tories would have reacted - they voted against and opposed ANY efforts of bank regulation whilst they were in opposition. Now, given that over £300bn has been reclaimed fro the banks and by selling them off cut-price to jerks like Branson, that effectively means that the Tories have grown the national debt by £1tn to its current standing of £1.7tn. Well done austerity - you've certainly screwed firefighters and nurses, but all the consultants and 'outsourced' organisations that still feed off the magic money tree have done fantastically in these seven years.

Bobby, the facetious, trite comparisons with a household budget have demented the common man's perceptions of how the national budget is run. Where, for argument's sake, did the banks' bailout money and the Iraq war money come from if we are comparing the economy to your ma's purse, let alone the money to get through two world wars? If you can, read Henry Mintzberg, the economist who predicted the crash for ten years, and his seminal book Rebalancing Society.

It doesn't have to be this way.

I had a quick look Donga and you are right, the banks were bailed out directly to 500 billion with loads more offered in credit.

I'm still not sure you are correct on the public spending figures as i think all the Public spending figures exclude the bank bailouts (so i will assume it doesn't include selling off the banks although its criminal that we sold them off cheaply). Dunno how accurate this UK public spending website is though.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2009UKbn_17bc1n_00104080828s#ukgs302

Okay i got all geeky and wasted loads of time when i'm meant to be working to do this.

I downloaded this badboy

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...tasets/publicsectorfinancesappendixatables110

It's a fair bit off but i'm not convinced that included bailing out the banks if i'm honest. It's ****ing hard trying to interpret these excels and theres not really enough details on it.

I'm not saying that the tories would have done better than labour if they were in control of the country. Unfortunately we will never know and labour were in power at the time so of course they will get the blame.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the tories are good, i'm just interested in the truth and a view of what is going on.

It's hard to attribute where this 500 billion extra has been spent bailing out the banks in any of the data i'm reading but if the net deficit was originally 30 billion when the times were good to then jump from 30 -> 80 (or something like that) to 150 whilst the economy was shrinking/not growing and with no austerity cuts, I find it hard to see that the net deficit figures include the 500 billion. The only thing i can think of is that the 500 billion investment spread over a number of years rather than 1 big hit or isn't included in the data.

I agree the tories have been taking the piss with selling state assets of cheap but at the same time i don't think spending our way out of trouble is the solution back in 2010. Having said that I did want Labour to win the last election.

What i didn't agree with Labour at the time was their policy of having a net deficit around 30 billion so that our national debt was increasing. Even you admit that we should be saving when the times (well someone did) and spending when the times are bad. We can't be spending spending and more spending.

 

[astro]

I had a quick look Donga and you are right, the banks were bailed out directly to 500 billion with loads more offered in credit.

I'm still not sure you are correct on the public spending figures as i think all the Public spending figures exclude the bank bailouts (so i will assume it doesn't include selling off the banks although its criminal that we sold them off cheaply). Dunno how accurate this UK public spending website is though.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2009UKbn_17bc1n_00104080828s#ukgs302

Okay i got all geeky and wasted loads of time when i'm meant to be working to do this.

I downloaded this badboy

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...tasets/publicsectorfinancesappendixatables110

It's a fair bit off but i'm not convinced that included bailing out the banks if i'm honest. It's ****ing hard trying to interpret these excels and theres not really enough details on it.

I'm not saying that the tories would have done better than labour if they were in control of the country. Unfortunately we will never know and labour were in power at the time so of course they will get the blame.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the tories are good, i'm just interested in the truth and a view of what is going on.

It's hard to attribute where this 500 billion extra has been spent bailing out the banks in any of the data i'm reading but if the net deficit was originally 30 billion when the times were good to then jump from 30 -> 80 (or something like that) to 150 whilst the economy was shrinking/not growing and with no austerity cuts, I find it hard to see that the net deficit figures include the 500 billion. The only thing i can think of is that the 500 billion investment spread over a number of years rather than 1 big hit or isn't included in the data.

I agree the tories have been taking the piss with selling state assets of cheap but at the same time i don't think spending our way out of trouble is the solution back in 2010. Having said that I did want Labour to win the last election.

What i didn't agree with Labour at the time was their policy of having a net deficit around 30 billion so that our national debt was increasing. Even you admit that we should be saving when the times (well someone did) and spending when the times are bad. We can't be spending spending and more spending.

Paying a lawyer £100,000 to argue why a disabled person can get by with £7/week less is a [HASHTAG]#falseeconomy[/HASHTAG] (unless they live for 275+ years) but Tory policies put cruelty ahead of actual savings, hence the massive increase in debt and increase in inequality

 

[Diego]

Paying a lawyer £100,000 to argue why a disabled person can get by with £7/week less is a [HASHTAG]#falseeconomy[/HASHTAG] (unless they live for 275+ years) but Tory policies put cruelty ahead of actual savings, hence the massive increase in debt and increase in inequality

Or unless there is a few more than one disabled person

 

[astro]

Or unless there is a few more than one disabled person

Yeah TBF I was exaggerating since those costs also include taking a rape victim to court against police advice, so it's only like £50,000 per incredible act of inhumanity