Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195156)

Tell us you don’t get how international diplomacy works without telling us you don’t get how international diplomacy works.

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:03 ----------



I’m not a politician. It’s not up to me to come up with answers.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195162)

Discussions should always include answers? Is that what you think?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

And you’re happy with this? Do you have any answers to this problem, because I haven’t heard them?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195160)

No different to what you, I or anyone else on this forum does.



In comparison to who/what?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195166)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195166)

I asked if, in your opinion, Starmer is doing a good job for the country.

It's a question that stands on its own - needs no comparator.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195162)

Discussions should always include answers? Is that what you think?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195169)

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195164)

I’ve discussed this several times in this and other threads. Not my issue if you can’t be bothered to find them.

And by the way, just because you’ve up with what you think is a “sensible” idea does not automatically make it a “sensible idea”.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195168)

Given the shitshow he inherited and how to move on from it, given it’s been 9 month then in that time no I don’t think he’s done a good job but I’ll reserve full judgement until a few years have passed to see if the economy and the state of the UK etc has improved.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195172)

The idea of a third country to take in our illegal immigrants is a sensible idea. You have no solutions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

I said:

‘It’s a shame that France provides life jackets for these illegal immigrants to Britain. What the hell are we paying the French for?’

So you read the first sentence and make the worst assumption, without reading the second sentence.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195151)

Perhaps you should read it again. You are simply not very good at grasping obvious points and you jump to conclusions.

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36195311)

This is going to be big if she can get her hands on the lost revenue.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36195183)

I read the first sentence and the second and I'm not the only one who came to the conclusions we did, it's actually hard not to come to that conclusion and even after your pretty poor explanation of What you meant there will be people reading it who will be thinking, Did he really mean it like that coz it doesn't really look like that



Maybe it's got to do with the company you keep elsewhere, people who would agree with both sentences as separate statements :shrug:

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36195210)

Dont be such an ass.
You worded it badly, and only YOU thought otherwise.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195429)

Get it now?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195175)

Rwanda costs us hundreds of millions and didn’t work.

Neither do you.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195689)

Rwanda would have stopped the boats,

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195691)

But….it didn’t.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195691)

But….it didn’t.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195692)

No. Too many bleeding heart liberals prevented better progress being made.

It would have worked, but it wasn’t given a chance, was it?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195696)

How, when the Tories were in charge?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195697)

They were in charge, yes, and a General election was looming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195697)

The human rights lawyers wouldn’t have put so much into opposing it if they thought that.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195700)

Looming?

Rwanda was signed in 2022.

The GE was in 2024.

£700m.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195700)

Maybe these lawyers just thought there was something wrong with sending asylum seekers to a country which wasn't safe (we accepted asylum seekers from there).

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195703)

Yes it was, and as you well know it faced huge opposition from Labour in the Commons and a barrage of legal cases brought by human rights lawyers that had to be heard first. That is not evidence it wouldn’t have worked, they were just obstacles put in the way that had to be negotiated.

Are you having problems with your memory, Russ?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195703)

They were do-gooders making money for themselves, nothing more. And at great cost to taxpayers.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195689)

......

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36195707)

I never credited you with enough intelligence to follow an admin request and you didn't disappoint...

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36195796)

Better late than never but Reeves must now be on a future re-shuffle list.

https://news.stv.tv/politics/rachel-...heatre-tickets

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36195797)

I thought she had stopped taking freebies

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36195798)

She stopped this year, these free tickets were from December 2024.

I'd be fuming if I was Starmer.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36195799)

why?- didn't he get any

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36195820)

Does anyone actually care if they get freebies or not? Celebs get them but I don't hear anyone moaning about it!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36195820)

Does anyone actually care if they get freebies or not? Celebs get them but I don't hear anyone moaning about it!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36195826)

I asked if anyone really cares ,I certainly don't. And who doesn't love a freebie anyway!

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36195820)

Does anyone actually care if they get freebies or not? Celebs get them but I don't hear anyone moaning about it!

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36195838)

They might be inclined to give those companies favourable treatment if they're getting stuff for free.

Practice should be banned. I would also ban civil servants and politicians from taking jobs in private companies with which they may have a conflict of interest for a set number of years.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36195838)

They might be inclined to give those companies favourable treatment if they're getting stuff for free.

Practice should be banned. I would also ban civil servants and politicians from taking jobs in private companies with which they may have a conflict of interest for a set number of years.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195951)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195951)

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195953)

Or are giving him time on parity with how long the Tories were in power for.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36195962)

Kind of wishful thinking really that they’ll be in power to match their 14 years don’t you think?

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36195962)

Kind of wishful thinking really that they’ll be in power to match their 14 years don’t you think? At this rate they could be out in 1 term which kind of answer the question.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195971)

I doubt it. It’s unlikely any party could make a mess of things to compare with the Tories 2010-24.

---------- Post added at 15:35 ---------- Previous post was at 15:34 ----------



And maybe you’d end up getting banned/suspended for mentioning the past etc

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195977)

Reform is the party that is on message with the British public. Labour will be nowhere to be seen after 2029.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195978)

It’s on message with the parts of the public who think difficult issues can be solved with simple ideas.

As for not being anywhere to be seen, say goodbye to the NHS.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195977)

Reform is the party that is on message with the British public. Labour will be nowhere to be seen after 2029.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36195978)

It’s on message with the parts of the public who think difficult issues can be solved with simple ideas.

As for not being anywhere to be seen, say goodbye to the NHS.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195984)

Well, given the resultsof the elections, it is not just a small minority who agree with them. You can judge how accurate your statement is on dealing with issues once you start seeing the results that Reform UK councils actually make.

It sounds as if you actually believe the NHS scare that Labour has used against the Conservatives for many, many decades. Clearly, you haven't taken into account of the fact that this still hasn't happened, and that the most significant increase in private sector involvement in the NHS happened under Blair's Labour Government.

Now you turn the same faux concern against Reform. Do change the record.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36195980)

That's one of my worries if Reform become the Government.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195977)

Reform is the party that is on message with the British public. Labour will be nowhere to be seen after 2029.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36195992)

4 years to the next election. That's a long time and a lot can happen. The fall out from Farage's buddy, ' the holy orange one' will be there for all to see. The fall out from the dregs that are Reform candidates given power in councils will also be apparent.

The working class voting for Reform are those that will be most targeted by Reform . Forget PIP , forget the NHS, forget public services. Lets hope they don't have to find out the hard way.

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36196002)

I think Labour are doing a good job. They said not everyone will be happy with the tough decisions they will have to make which is proving to be. I totally agree with the the decision to axe the fuel allowance for all pensioners for the very reason many DON'T need it. The time to judge Labour is in 4 years time not now. Reform won't last long once people see how they mess up the council's they run.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36195983)

Perhaps a change of name from NHS to" national hold your hand you poor hard done by thing "

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36195984)

It sounds as if you actually believe the NHS scare that Labour has used against the Conservatives for many, many decades. Clearly, you haven't taken into account of the fact that this still hasn't happened, and that the most significant increase in private sector involvement in the NHS happened under Blair's Labour Government.

Now you turn the same faux concern against Reform. Do change the record.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36195996)

To all you Labour supporters who still don't comment on Starmer's outcomes so far:

Do you think Starmer and his team are doing a good job and if do why? I'll concede that Wes Streeting seems to be doing a reasonable job.

All I see is Reform bad this, Tories bad that but you seem too embarrassed to criticise your darling Labour who are royally screwing up the people and the economy.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36196010)

Can you post your evidence "that many don't need it"

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36196010)

Can you post your evidence "that many don't need it"

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36196019)

How,I don't know everyone but I do know several pensioners who have told me they don't need it. One of them gave it to me because I do need it but don't qualify for it yet

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36196016)

I really hope you don't get seriously ill but if you do you'll find it's the NHS that treats you and not your private scheme

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36196023)

Depends on how you look at it. I probably know about 20 pensioners and at least 14 of them say they don't need it. And let's not forget all pensioners got it under the old system INCLUDING millionaire celebrities! Was it fair they got it? Absolutely not!

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36196035)

And here is the opposite argument, my Father in law is bed ridden and needs constant care. We submitted his application when all this came out and they said he is £30:00 a month over so no additional support. As a family we now cover his heating bills and as a family we will all be voting against Labour at the next election. We do not understand Labours attacks on pensioners and the disabled .

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 36196035)

And here is the opposite argument, my Father in law is bed ridden and needs constant care. We submitted his application when all this came out and they said he is £30:00 a month over so no additional support. As a family we now cover his heating bills and as a family we will all be voting against Labour at the next election. We do not understand Labours attacks on pensioners and the disabled .

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36196016)

I really hope you don't get seriously ill but if you do you'll find it's the NHS that treats you and not your private scheme



Yes don't believe farage when he has repeatedly said he wants to privatise the NHS, they were saying that about donnie too, don't believe what he says, look how that's turned out for America so no thanks I won't be changing the record till farage does




Royally screwing the economy, conveniently forgetting the Billions black hole they inherited, I quite like gb energy, I like the rail nationalisation, the brining of buses under local government control and keeping the fares down, I like the breakfast clubs very much, I also like the housing reforms that have closed many of the loopholes the Conservatives put in place to avoid meeting targets, the compulsory purchase orders are good too as is the protections in place for renters, the ban on being forced to sign a zero hours contract, scrapping the Rwandan white elephant, getting to the heart of small boats and going after the gangs may work better than expected, sorting out the junior doctors dispute. That'll do of the top of my head but there's much they've done they doesn't get reported in our right wing press, so yes compared to the alternatives I'm very happy.




The 27% of pensioners who are millionaires...

Originally Posted by telegramsam (Post 36196019)

How,I don't know everyone but I do know several pensioners who have told me they don't need it. One of them gave it to me because I do need it but don't qualify for it yet

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196064)

A pensioner I know was most put out because she used to use that money for her holidays!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36196064)

A pensioner I know was most put out because she used to use that money for her holidays!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36196065)

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36196016)

I really hope you don't get seriously ill but if you do you'll find it's the NHS that treats you and not your private scheme

Yes don't believe farage when he has repeatedly said he wants to privatise the NHS, they were saying that about donnie too, don't believe what he says, look how that's turned out for America so no thanks I won't be changing the record till farage does

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36196016)

The 27% of pensioners who are millionaires...

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36196071)

What would your response be to people who cannot afford bills as they are now, never mind needing to pay for health insurance?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36196071)

What he means is people will be entitled to a free consultation as available in most American hospitals. After that, if you want/need treatment, you pay.

What would your response be to people who cannot afford bills as they are now, never mind needing to pay for health insurance?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36196087)

No response? Ok.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36196016)

The 27% of pensioners who are millionaires...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36196077)

Come on, link please.

Or are you basing it on people that bought a house within the M25 in 50yrs ago that is now worth £X million, but they can’t afford to heat it?.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36196141)

It seems there has been a disturbance in the force

Top Labour figure urges PM to rethink two of his most controversial policies
Following last week's elections drubbing, Labour figures are openly questioning the prime minister's strategy. The party's Welsh first minister has urged Keir Starmer to rethink controversial changes to the winter fuel payment and benefits.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-...reens-12593360

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36196145)

As if a thousand Labour councillors in marginal seats cried out … and were suddenly silenced

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36196154)

As I said before the political cost to them of this compared to the money saved is moronic. They could have got rid of the triple lock for just as much damage, saved a lot more money and gained a lot more market confidence if they wanted to borrow more.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36196167)

it was never about money, it's hatred of the elderly, there's a lot of it around in this country

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36196178)

I dont think its either, just simple incompetence.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36196207)

Miliband’s nonsense has played just as squarely into the election results as the stiffing by Starmer of the pensioners.

In today’s PM questions, Kemi successfully skewered Starmer who referred to notes on every question without going near an answer. I doubt that the swing voters watch PM’s questions, but the media will have their regular weekly fun pulling that liar apart.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36196208)

It's clear he hates pensioners and intends to fund the lunatic Miliband until the uk is destroyed

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Meanwhile net stupid costs set to escalate

https://news.sky.com/story/orsted-pu...enges-13363134

Orsted pulls plug on Hornsea 4 windfarm, blaming a surge in challenges

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36196217)

Renewables are amongst the cheapest energy sources and give us energy sovereignty. Be wary of unreliable news sources that advocate otherwise. They want us beholden to Johnny Foreigner.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36196218)

I'm disappointed with your reply. Renewables need wind and light (see a calm night followed by a calm day for problem details). Your statement is too glib when you look at the realities.

We can assume that the government has charted wind locations from a strategic perspective so that eventually there can be continuous wind power sources. But have they tied that into consumption demand timelines, grid connectivity challenges, technology to overcome turbine load shedding, timeline risk assessments?

In the meantime, we should exploit our own carbon resources as an insurance against timeline risk rather than hypocritically buy carbon products from elsewhere.

Do you agree with me?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36196219)

No.

We should be exploiting whatever’s left of our expertise in nuclear energy. Thankfully, while we shamefully allowed our civil capability to wither to the point that we had to ask EDF to build new mega-scale power stations for us, our military nuclear capability means we can yet get back in the game with small and medium sized modular reactor plants derived from the designs used in our submarines. And in the next 6-7 years we will have expanded our uranium enrichment capabilities to the point where we can securely fuel them as well.

Oil and gas is traded on international markets wherever it is produced and it would only ever be nationalised for domestic use only in a dire existential emergency. The fact that we have plenty of it under our seas does not therefore offer us the hassle-free energy security you seem to think it does.