General Election 2019

[duggie2000]

What evidence have you got that he is interested in funding left wing parties when all the evidence suggests it is the right wing parties? What we do know for sure is that Russians are contributing to the Tory party funds.

OFH as a regular member on this board who tends to read rather than post on the "TOXIC POLITICAL THREADS" where is your absolute, irrefutable proof that SH is spoofing
The same question to Toby and Cologne and Yorkie
The truth is you all read what you want to believe which makes sometimes entertaining arguments but the arguments are usually one sided as far as numbers of opinions go
The truth is out there somewhere
Just saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[colognehornet]

OFH as a regular member on this board who tends to read rather than post on the "TOXIC POLITICAL THREADS" where is your absolute, irrefutable proof that SH is spoofing
The same question to Toby and Cologne and Yorkie
The truth is you all read what you want to believe which makes sometimes entertaining arguments but the arguments are usually one sided as far as numbers of opinions go
The truth is out there somewhere
Just saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have absolute, irrefutable proof that we all read what we want to believe ?

 

[duggie2000]

Of course not but it is a valid observation

 

[duggie2000]

I was also referring to SH

 

[colognehornet]

I was also referring to SH

We do not have proof of whether the Russian government was funding either the Conservative Party or the Brexit campaign Duggie, but we do have the evidence that Boris Johnson has, unnecessarily, suppressed/delayed the publication of the report on the matter. That was what was being referred to.

 

[duggie2000]

We do not have proof of whether the Russian government was funding either the Conservative Party or the Brexit campaign Duggie, but we do have the evidence that Boris Johnson has, unnecessarily, suppressed/delayed the publication of the report on the matter. That was what was being referred to.

Cologne
They are all politicians regardless of their party
The clue to their actions is in their occupation
In the fifties and sixties the MPs were more transparent and believed in what they stood for
The final nail in that coffin was the Blair /Brown government and since then you have to try and second guess what they really mean
Which is why turnouts for elections have been dropping
I do wonder if the next Election will actually engage more than 40% of the voting age population

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I am afraid that SH posts thing that I know are his chosen interpretation of news events, but especially when he refers to France are just not correct. An example is his constant referrals to rioting on the streets. Today there were a number of peaceful protests in several cities where the numbers who turned out could be counted in hundreds, not thousands. They were complaining about what they regard as social issues where they do not think that government is addressing them fast enough. Compared to the recent protests in London on the environment these were very small events. There were a handful of arrests on public order matters, but no way could this be described as rioting.
On the case of Russian money finding its way to the extreme right wing Le Pen, that is a matter of fact which even she does not deny. The MPs who compiled the report into Russian involvement in UK politics represent all parties and said that the report should be published before the election. It is usual for such a report to be released 7-10 after it has received security clearance, which it had. So why is it being suppressed at such a time?

 

[duggie2000]

I am afraid that SH posts thing that I know are his chosen interpretation of news events, but especially when he refers to France are just not correct. An example is his constant referrals to rioting on the streets. Today there were a number of peaceful protests in several cities where the numbers who turned out could be counted in hundreds, not thousands. They were complaining about what they regard as social issues where they do not think that government is addressing them fast enough. Compared to the recent protests in London on the environment these were very small events. There were a handful of arrests on public order matters, but no way could this be described as rioting.
On the case of Russian money finding its way to the extreme right wing Le Pen, that is a matter of fact which even she does not deny. The MPs who compiled the report into Russian involvement in UK politics represent all parties and said that the report should be published before the election. It is usual for such a report to be released 7-10 after it has received security clearance, which it had. So why is it being suppressed at such a time?

I do know that OFH
There are times when I do wonder if SH has two identities and he starts arguments with himself, probably not on the Watford board
On the main Not606 board there are several I know have at least 2 identities and always argue against each other
At least on here we are as one with the football threads

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

Cologne
They are all politicians regardless of their party
The clue to their actions is in their occupation
In the fifties and sixties the MPs were more transparent and believed in what they stood for
The final nail in that coffin was the Blair /Brown government and since then you have to try and second guess what they really mean
Which is why turnouts for elections have been dropping
I do wonder if the next Election will actually engage more than 40% of the voting age population

Since WWII politics have changed quite drastically. Most political commentators agree that for years the system worked on consensus, where the broad scope of putting the good of the country came first. They argued about the details, but not the actual aims. This was broken by the ideology of the Thatcher governments, where letting money set the policies, and not interfere in the markets was her mantra. It had bad effects that still linger today. John Major followed her and returned to more mainstream politics, and against all expectations won a general election on that basis. Whatever the pros and cons of the Blair years there was some returning towards more social concerns, and it probably all went wrong when he took the country to war. Since then it become more and more difficult to work out what is truth or lies.

 

[duggie2000]

Since WWII politics have changed quite drastically. Most political commentators agree that for years the system worked on consensus, where the broad scope of putting the good of the country came first. They argued about the details, but not the actual aims. This was broken by the ideology of the Thatcher governments, where letting money set the policies, and not interfere in the markets was her mantra. It had bad effects that still linger today. John Major followed her and returned to more mainstream politics, and against all expectations won a general election on that basis. Whatever the pros and cons of the Blair years there was some returning towards more social concerns, and it probably all went wrong when he took the country to war. Since then it become more and more difficult to work out what is truth or lies.

Which is why I said people tend to read what they want to believe hoping it is at least partly true
Quite sad really when our future depends on the entire planet having the same views and beliefs
Sadly never going to happen

 

[superhorns]

I do know that OFH
There are times when I do wonder if SH has two identities and he starts arguments with himself, probably not on the Watford board
On the main Not606 board there are several I know have at least 2 identities and always argue against each other
At least on here we are as one with the football threads

This is funny, can you please kindly give me a clue where I can find my other self?.

Is it like long lost family?

 

[superhorns]

Since WWII politics have changed quite drastically. Most political commentators agree that for years the system worked on consensus, where the broad scope of putting the good of the country came first. They argued about the details, but not the actual aims. This was broken by the ideology of the Thatcher governments, where letting money set the policies, and not interfere in the markets was her mantra. It had bad effects that still linger today. John Major followed her and returned to more mainstream politics, and against all expectations won a general election on that basis. Whatever the pros and cons of the Blair years there was some returning towards more social concerns, and it probably all went wrong when he took the country to war. Since then it become more and more difficult to work out what is truth or lies.

Politics was broken in the UK with the rise of Kremlin sponsored trade union leaders in the 60s with the sole intention of bringing down successive democratic governments. It was not until Thatcher took on these industrial wreckers and defeated them that the UK had decades of good growth where living standards improved dramatically for everyone. Blair sensibly did not reverse any of her policies, especially on industrial relations which enabled Labour to enjoy many years in office.

The Momentum led Labour Party of today has a desire to take the UK back to those days of industrial strife, uncontrolled picketing, and unions dominating the headlines. Most sensible people that remotely remember those days will vote Conservative to ensure we do return back to those days of strife, blackouts, rubbish on the streets etc.

 

[superhorns]

I am afraid that SH posts thing that I know are his chosen interpretation of news events, but especially when he refers to France are just not correct. An example is his constant referrals to rioting on the streets. Today there were a number of peaceful protests in several cities where the numbers who turned out could be counted in hundreds, not thousands. They were complaining about what they regard as social issues where they do not think that government is addressing them fast enough. Compared to the recent protests in London on the environment these were very small events. There were a handful of arrests on public order matters, but no way could this be described as rioting.
On the case of Russian money finding its way to the extreme right wing Le Pen, that is a matter of fact which even she does not deny. The MPs who compiled the report into Russian involvement in UK politics represent all parties and said that the report should be published before the election. It is usual for such a report to be released 7-10 after it has received security clearance, which it had. So why is it being suppressed at such a time?

The facts are the yellow vests riots have been a serious part of French life for the last couple of years. Macron has changed his policies due to this pressure and is now adopting a far harder attitude to immigration as previously described. I'm not sure how you can hide the popularity of Le Pen's extreme right party, France is very split politically.

The report on potential Russian involvement is on a normal time frame to be released, it is only those on the left that are desperately trying to find a problem which by all accounts is not even there.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

"Most sensible people that remotely remember those days will vote Conservative to ensure we do return back to those days of strife, blackouts, rubbish on the streets etc."

Have you seen the light all of a sudden?

 

[superhorns]

"Most sensible people that remotely remember those days will vote Conservative to ensure we do return back to those days of strife, blackouts, rubbish on the streets etc."

Have you seen the light all of a sudden?

no (t)

 

[colognehornet]

Cologne
They are all politicians regardless of their party
The clue to their actions is in their occupation
In the fifties and sixties the MPs were more transparent and believed in what they stood for
The final nail in that coffin was the Blair /Brown government and since then you have to try and second guess what they really mean
Which is why turnouts for elections have been dropping
I do wonder if the next Election will actually engage more than 40% of the voting age population

You can't compare to the 50s or 60s Duggie - society was so different then. In those days:

Only birds twittered ! There was no social media, little in the way of televised debate, and the newspapers were more impartial. Politicians had to stand on stages and give speeches for the multitude - this was the only real way to get your message out.

Membership of political parties stood in the millions then - parties were, as a result, not cap in hand for sponsorship.

The state had more resources then (prior to mass privatization) - it was unknown then for global players to have more resources, and turnover, than whole countries.

Disgruntled millionaires were not free to take their millions, and firms, overseas in those days - money mostly stayed where it was, because there were restrictions on how much you could take out.

60% of adult men worked in factories then - they were mostly unionized and politically organized (politically active) - there was unskilled work, and they were also in unions. The poorest 30% of our society has subsequently fallen out of politics.

The Labour Party then remembered their roots in Christian Socialism, and there were more people around then who were religiously active.

What else ? Watford fans still stood in the rain at places like Tranmere watching hoofball - but at least if it was boring you could have a *** !

In those days capitalism had to keep up a token humanitarian image because it was seen as being a competing theory with that of the Warsaw Pact.

Society was more homogenuous in those days, and class based, rather than being based on status. I'm sure that you could go on with this list which could be endless.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

It would appear that while Johnson has tried to suppress the Russian report, details have been circulating in the USA, who are thought to be equally at risk from involvement. Nine people are named it seems. Alexander Temerko is a friend of Johnson and works for the Russian defence ministry, and has donated £1.2 M to the Tories. Then there is Lubov Chernukhin who is married to a close ally of Putin and has handed over £450,000 in twelve months.
The inquiry also heard concerns about the former Russian spy Alexander Lebedev, who owns the Evening Standard and Independent newspapers.
Lebedev's son Evgeny is a close friend of the prime minister and has repeatedly hosted him for parties at his castle in Perugia Italy, while Johnson was mayor of London and Foreign Secretary.
Concerns were raised about Johnson's decision to attend the events, in which guests have reported that "nothing is off the menu from the moment you are greeted to the moment you leave."
Fears have been raised that Johnson's private life may make him a "security risk" due to the possibility he could be blackmailed.
"There's the danger that people leak what they have over him or blackmail him with it," a Cabinet minister in Theresa May's government told the Sunday Times .

The news also comes with Johnson's chief strategist, Dominic Cummings, under the spotlight after the Sunday Times reported claims from a whistleblower about "serious concerns" about the time he spent in Russia in the 1990s.
Cummings has reportedly had his access to intelligence restricted by UK authorities, despite his senior position.

So these leaks are only a part of what it contains. Governments have been brought down after too close an arrangement with Russian spies. No wonder Johnson doesn't wish to be questioned about his private life making him a security risk.

 

[duggie2000]

This is funny, can you please kindly give me a clue where I can find my other self?.

Is it like long lost family?

I did think he lived in Germany

 

[duggie2000]

You can't compare to the 50s or 60s Duggie - society was so different then. In those days:

Only birds twittered ! There was no social media, little in the way of televised debate, and the newspapers were more impartial. Politicians had to stand on stages and give speeches for the multitude - this was the only real way to get your message out.

Membership of political parties stood in the millions then - parties were, as a result, not cap in hand for sponsorship.

The state had more resources then (prior to mass privatization) - it was unknown then for global players to have more resources, and turnover, than whole countries.

Disgruntled millionaires were not free to take their millions, and firms, overseas in those days - money mostly stayed where it was, because there were restrictions on how much you could take out.

60% of adult men worked in factories then - they were mostly unionized and politically organized (politically active) - there was unskilled work, and they were also in unions. The poorest 30% of our society has subsequently fallen out of politics.

The Labour Party then remembered their roots in Christian Socialism, and there were more people around then who were religiously active.

What else ? Watford fans still stood in the rain at places like Tranmere watching hoofball - but at least if it was boring you could have a *** !

In those days capitalism had to keep up a token humanitarian image because it was seen as being a competing theory with that of the Warsaw Pact.

Society was more homogenuous in those days, and class based, rather than being based on status. I'm sure that you could go on with this list which could be endless.

Hence my comments Cologne

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

I went to school in the 1950's and the effects of WWII were still being felt. Rationing of many food items was still operating and many people struggled to just get by. At my school there were children who didn't have a coat to wear even in the coldest weather. Shoes would be held together with tape or string as they were likely to have been passed down the family. Families would borrow some food from a neighbour who might have some while they waited for Friday payday to come round. I remember a boy stealing an egg from the school kitchen so he could take something home for his mother to eat. Most men had jobs, but they just didn't pay enough. Slowly things improved, with the most successful house building operation of all time taking place, jointly funded by central and local government.
I never thought I would see again such conditions, but when I read the report from the Trussell Trust and see the millions of people they are having to feed, have we moved on or regressed? When we had our teacher from Scotland telling us about kids he taught having holes in their shoes when there was snow on the ground, that reminded me of my schooldays. The great affordable housing program announced four years ago hasn't delivered a single home, and wages in real terms are lower than they were ten years ago.
The media that didn't even exist in those days has created a world of colour that makes the grey days of the 1950's seem something of the past, whereas for some people life hasn't moved on very much. They see some gathering all the gadgets of the modern age, while they head down to the local food bank. The fair distribution of the countries wealth has not worked.