Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
JJinDevon said:
If you're on a meter, it doesn't matter what you're using your water for - watering the garden, using your toilets, filling your hot tub or even pouring it straight back down the drain - you pay more if you use more (already). Can't see the point of her comment and actually, tbf, don't see the problem with the number of toilets in the woman's home either: having six loos or twenty makes no difference as each person in the household can only use one toilet at a time. Mind you, if she was hosting a couple of football teams and feeding them Vindaloos, then that might put her usage up a bit, which (see above) she'd have to pay more for.
Click to expand...

Can water companies impose a hosepipe ban, if we're paying via a meter for our water? This is not (I hope) similar to power cuts being enforced on us, as happened in the Seventies, unless water companies stop supplying individual premises. As you say, if you're on a meter, the use you make of the water is down to you, as you're paying for it.
 
Lemons and Oranges said:
Can water companies impose a hosepipe ban, if we're paying via a meter for our water? This is not (I hope) similar to power cuts being enforced on us, as happened in the Seventies, unless water companies stop supplying individual premises. As you say, if you're on a meter, the use you make of the water is down to you, as you're paying for it.
Click to expand...
As we are talking about "watering the garden" I can see a good reason not to water the lawn. Grass is oñe of the toughest.plants out there. So be it if it turns brown. The colour will return.when the rains arrive.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges, Archers Road and OddRiverOakWizards
StJabbo1 said:
Smoke and flames for the arsehole to burn in plus the GB news double standards with it's coverage of Huw Edwards whilst Wootton's years of criminal activity goes unmentioned. How it's allowed to keep broadcasting is diet of right wing propaganda is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I held my nose and watched some of Wootton's programme last night, to see if he mentioned things (he didn't, other than to say that Carol Vorderman had spread some scurrilous rumours about him). It really is an absolute bin fire of a channel, I was quite shocked at how bad it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Le Tissier's Laces said:
I held my nose and watched some of Wootton's programme last night, to see if he mentioned things (he didn't, other than to say that Carol Vorderman had spread some scurrilous rumours about him). It really is an absolute bin fire of a channel, I was quite shocked at how bad it was.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised, well maybe not, that he's not been suspended given the calls for Huw Edward's head. I've only seen snippets and read bias reports which reinforces my view of the abysmal standards at GB news.
 
Listen up, critics: first let Labour win power. Then scrutinise its real record
Guardian

Time for some perspective. Even the prospect of winning a rock-solid Tory seat should remind doubters of what has been an epic climb by Labour from the despair of its 2019 near-death experience. Labour’s leader had a strategy mapped out from day one, and nothing has distracted him from it: two years to fix the party, ruthlessly expunging any who damage it; a set of five cast-iron missions; and fiscal discipline, avoiding all spending traps ahead of the manifesto. And the result is an astounding 20-point lead. Are Labour people satisfied? Of course not. We see glum faces among the left-leaning commentators, who say Labour will only win as the result of the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss catastrophes. They want to know a Labour government will be transformational, exhilarating, brave, inspired: instead they complain of extreme caution and affronts to Labour values.

But this is the time to remember May 1997, and how euphoric that Labour victory felt. Understand that the closer Labour gets to the winning post, the greater its fear of one false step, one fatal slip. It won’t matter how excellent Labour’s policies were for the poorest people in Britain if it returns to the miserable opposition benches. Keir Starmer has said from the outset that winning is his purpose

^This
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasyBreezer, Schrodinger's Cat, OddRiverOakWizards and 3 others
Guardian 2

I too yearn for more, always more. But to the glums complaining Labour will be Tory-lite, lacking vision and ambition, remember this: we have just lived through 13 appalling years of austerity vandalism. Remember that every Labour government improves the lives of those with least, raises benefits, raises taxes on well-off people, leaves schools, hospitals and public life better, while every Conservative government trashes those things. Will it be enough? No. It never is. But my bet is that Reeves and Starmer will be bolder than anyone now expects. Without doubt they will do, as New Labour did, far more than they dare promise while tip-toeing towards the finishing line
 
  • Like
Reactions: milton archer, StJabbo1, ......loading...... and 2 others
Yeah, I don't have spectacularly high hopes for Starmer, but job one -- and the job his three predecessors failed miserably to accomplish -- is to actually be in a position to do something. They're going to be inheriting the ****show to end all ****shows, which almost demands some sort of radical action, but the sort of radical actions it'll take (mostly raising revenues from the rich and upper middle class, quite possibly some re-nationalization) aren't actually as broadly popular as they are within Labour, even if they're blindingly obvious and tend to be favoured in retrospect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman
Schad said:
Yeah, I don't have spectacularly high hopes for Starmer, but job one -- and the job his three predecessors failed miserably to accomplish -- is to actually be in a position to do something. They're going to be inheriting the ****show to end all ****shows, which almost demands some sort of radical action, but the sort of radical actions it'll take (mostly raising revenues from the rich and upper middle class, quite possibly some re-nationalization) aren't actually as broadly popular as they are within Labour, even if they're blindingly obvious and tend to be favoured in retrospect.
Click to expand...
I have reservations about Starmer and the Labour leadership. They've ruled out rejoining the customs union and single market during the next Labour government and I think refusing to move on the conference vote for electoral reform. Two issues at the top of my wish list.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges and ......loading......
StJabbo1 said:
I have reservations about Starmer and the Labour leadership. They've ruled out rejoining the customs union and single market during the next Labour government and I think reusing to move on the conference vote for electoral reform. Two issues at the top of my wish list.
Click to expand...
Electoral reform has to be brought in. Our two party system is rotten to the core. Everyone's vote should count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and shoot_spiderman
StJabbo1 said:
I have reservations about Starmer and the Labour leadership. They've ruled out rejoining the customs union and single market during the next Labour government and I think reusing to move on the conference vote for electoral reform. Two issues at the top of my wish list.
Click to expand...

They'd be two items on the top of my list, too. Problem is that they're also two of the most polarizing issues on the docket. With a large enough majority, I think you can probably sell rejoining the customs union as an economic necessity (and it is) and sidestep relitigating Brexit, but you probably can't do that pre-election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman
StJabbo1 said:
I have reservations about Starmer and the Labour leadership. They've ruled out rejoining the customs union and single market during the next Labour government and I think reusing to move on the conference vote for electoral reform. Two issues at the top of my wish list.
Click to expand...

Maybe Starmer et al are playing the long game: If they came straight out now, and said "We're going to rejoin the EU", the Tories (and anyone to their right, there must be some) would immediately put this at the top of any election literature, just to scare people into thinking that links with Europe must be bad, because...well, Brexit has been a success, hasn't it?

If the Labour party don't say that they will re-join the EU, or similar, the Tories will have to find something else to scare people with. Or they could just highlight the successes that they've had over the past 13 or so years. Oh, wait...
 
  • Like
Reactions: shoot_spiderman and StJabbo1
Lemons and Oranges said:
Maybe Starmer et al are playing the long game: If they came straight out now, and said "We're going to rejoin the EU", the Tories (and anyone to their right, there must be some) would immediately put this at the top of any election literature, just to scare people into thinking that links with Europe must be bad, because...well, Brexit has been a success, hasn't it?

If the Labour party don't say that they will re-join the EU, or similar, the Tories will have to find something else to scare people with. Or they could just highlight the successes that they've had over the past 13 or so years. Oh, wait...
Click to expand...
I think/hope their long term plans are for a closer relationship with the huge single market next door. After all they need us more than we need them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lemons and Oranges
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back