Starmer’s chronicles

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

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



In comparison to who/what?

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.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

Well he's smashed the gangs

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

It absolutely does. In comparison to the individuals at the start of this decade? Absolutely he’s doing a better job. That doesn’t equate to him doing a good job.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

My text deleted in the light of Russ's previous post which finally answered my question.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I suppose that a person who is half in the corporeal and half in the ethereal may come to this forum in the state that only likes to carp and not provide answers.

Still, it's your choice - you don't want to be drawn into saying whether or not Starmer is doing a good job for this country.

I literally just told you I don’t think he's done a good job. Maybe a trip to Specsavers?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Russ

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”.

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

---------- Post added at 13:49 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

Agreed, that’s what I think sounds sensible.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

Neither do you.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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

I notice a few of you do this on Cable Forum, quite a lot. I don’t get this elsewhere.

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

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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

[thenry]

Rachel Reeves is to review the tax regime for imports of low-value goods in an effort to prevent Chinese companies undercutting British retailers by dumping cheap items on online marketplaces.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-value-imports

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

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by thenry

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

yes it should put prices up

[Sephiroth]

The entire economic thinking of the Starmer regime is off the stupidity scale. Nothing they are doing can improve the economy.

There are conflicting choices in respect of retail pricing versus affordability. The first step that they are ignoring is to divert all efforts to economic growth. This requires a sound plan to which lenders will encourage us to borrow. Above all, Labur is ill-suited to this task as we have seen.

A tariff war with China requires a counter-balancing plan for the reasonable supply and manufacture of displaced items. It's the "manufacture" element that makes this impossible to achieve so re-balancing the economy to allow for cheap imports is required. Politicians do not have the skills necessary to do this and will need sound business/economic advice from the business sector.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

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

No. I just credited people with the ability to read whole posts rather than just the first words that got their goat.

Clearly you didn’t even get to the second sentence which queried what we were paying the French for, and you appear to have admitted that! Talk about a knee jerk reaction.

Don’t worry, The Daddy, you are in good company on this forum! ������

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

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

Second sentence, Paul. Second sentence.

Get it now?

[Russ]

FGS quit while you still can….

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Get it now?

Yes, I get you are desperate to defend your mistake, its not working.
If you'd just noted you worded it badly, no one would have thought any more about it.
Instead your desperate attempts to explain otherwise are just making you look more and more foolish.

Give it up and get back to the topic.