ChaoticMusings

Digger · Admin

RE: Is Britain broken?

Maddog · Go Outside

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/07/university-west-england-shakespeare-trigger-warnings/

🙄

Digger · Admin

you know when you're all 'right on' and 'woke' and then someone finds your wattsapp messages Politicians, huh? Screenshot 2025-02-09 102133.jpg

-- Edited by Digger on Sunday 9th of February 2025 10:26:58 AM

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Digger wrote:
you know when you're all 'right on' and 'woke' and then someone finds your wattsapp messages Politicians, huh?

The Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook is trying to 'big up' Starmer for 'acting decisively' - but surely if one of his own MPs wanted an OAP to die and made derogatory comments about Jews and blacks, then it's pretty obvious that he needs to be sacked, and that Starmer hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. He couldn't not sack him could he?

This idiot is trying to take the public for mugs by banging on about Starmer acting decisively and how he will act to 'uphold the highest standards in public office' - LoL

Regardless of the content of Gwynne's comments, he should be fired alone on the basis of him being compltely fucking stupid for posting stuff like that in the public arena and not expecting to be found out. Imagine having someone like that representing you?

Digger · Admin

Red Okktober wrote:
Digger wrote:
you know when you're all 'right on' and 'woke' and then someone finds your wattsapp messages Politicians, huh?
The Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook is trying to 'big up' Starmer for 'acting decisively' - but surely if one of his own MPs wanted an OAP to die and made derogatory comments about Jews and blacks, then it's pretty obvious that he needs to be sacked, and that Starmer hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. He couldn't not sack him could he?
This idiot is trying to take the public for mugs by banging on about Starmer acting decisively and how he will act to 'uphold the highest standards in public office' - LoL
Regardless of the content of Gwynne's comments, he should be fired alone on the basis of him being compltely fucking stupid for posting stuff like that in the public arena and not expecting to be found out. Imagine having someone like that representing you?

For me this just highlights what a piss poor inept ignorant classless bunch of politicians we've been lumbered with. Love her or hate her, the last great Prime Minister we had was Margaret Thatcher.

She'd have de-bollocked the lot of them.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anyone in any job who spoke about people like he did would be fired. Ageist, sexist, racist, anti-sematic, he filled the brief of an ignorant twat who looks down his nose at everyone brilliantly.
Obviously he is sorry now, sorry he was outed.

As for Starmer getting kudos for 'acting immediately' ... once again, he acts when things come to light, not before, and often, not even then.

Magica · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Anyone in any job who spoke about people like he did would be fired. Ageist, sexist, racist, anti-sematic, he filled the brief of an ignorant twat who looks down his nose at everyone brilliantly.
Obviously he is sorry now, sorry he was outed.

As for Starmer getting kudos for 'acting immediately' ... once again, he acts when things come to light, not before, and often, not even then.

I agree Syl

jackb · 1000 Posts!?

And President Musk keeps interfering as well now.

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Another Labour MP, Oliver Ryan, has been suspended for taking part in the whatsapp group - something or the other about accusing someone of being gay, no biggie really, but by the standards they have set out, he has become a cropper as well.

Of course he has tried to play it down by saying he regrets not 'speaking out' at what others had said, before mentioning that he had also made comments himself. I suspect he has been suspended for what he did say and not for what he didnt say, so the 'not speaking out' comment is a load of bollocks as per usual.

A Labour spokesman has said something about 'swift action' and 'high standards' LoL

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Rachel Reeves is in the spotlight again about more lies on her CV and also being previously investigated for an expenses scandal.

She has previously written about, and mentioned several times in speeches, that she worked for the Bank of England for a decade, when in fact she was there for 5 and a half years (including 1 years studying). Her Linkedin profile puts her leaving date 9 months after she actually left. She has naturally put this down to that old chestnut, an 'admin error'. She has repeated that her time as an economist at the BOE is why she can be trusted with the country's finances LoL. I guess she thought no one would notice the added on 4 and a half years!

She also claimed to be an economist at HBOS, when in fact she was just a manager in the complaints department. She also lied about her leaving date with them.

Her CV is riddled with easily discovered lies.

She was investigated for an expenses claim involving spending hundreds of pounds on handbags, perfume, earrings, taxis, and wine. Nothing new there then.

Of course, Starmer says she can be 'trusted' and has full confidence in her. Having been in the spotlight himself over his own freebies, and given the Transport Secretary position to Louise Haigh, who had previously been done for fraud, you can see why he thinks so highly of Reeves.

news.sky.com/story/pm-backs-reeves-despite-allegations-of-expenses-scandal-at-bank-job-13308372

Maddog · Go Outside

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable

I'm glad I don't have her job. If she raises taxes, folks will howl. If she cuts spending folks will howl. If she kicks the can down the road and just throws it on the credit card, she will be irresponsible.

Date: Feb 16 7:15 PM, 2025

Red Okktober wrote:
Digger wrote:
you know when you're all 'right on' and 'woke' and then someone finds your wattsapp messages Politicians, huh?
The Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook is trying to 'big up' Starmer for 'acting decisively' - but surely if one of his own MPs wanted an OAP to die and made derogatory comments about Jews and blacks, then it's pretty obvious that he needs to be sacked, and that Starmer hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. He couldn't not sack him could he?
This idiot is trying to take the public for mugs by banging on about Starmer acting decisively and how he will act to 'uphold the highest standards in public office' - LoL
Regardless of the content of Gwynne's comments, he should be fired alone on the basis of him being compltely fucking stupid for posting stuff like that in the public arena and not expecting to be found out. Imagine having someone like that representing you?

You do know that you would be in your element on X/Twitter!

The Far Right are really welcome there now!

Of course those in the know have already cancelled our accounts and moved to the more friendly and progressive site Blue Sky!

A blessed relief from all of the hate since the Nazi Musk took over!

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable

I'm glad I don't have her job. If she raises taxes, folks will howl. If she cuts spending folks will howl. If she kicks the can down the road and just throws it on the credit card, she will be irresponsible.

Lol....I doubt even she would have her job if she hadn't lied through the teeth about her working history.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable

I'm glad I don't have her job. If she raises taxes, folks will howl. If she cuts spending folks will howl. If she kicks the can down the road and just throws it on the credit card, she will be irresponsible.
Lol....I doubt even she would have her job if she hadn't lied through the teeth about her working history.

And there is something to that. People who want those jobs tend to be a little full of shit, and the decent honest folks will never rise through the ranks to get there..

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable

I'm glad I don't have her job. If she raises taxes, folks will howl. If she cuts spending folks will howl. If she kicks the can down the road and just throws it on the credit card, she will be irresponsible.
Lol....I doubt even she would have her job if she hadn't lied through the teeth about her working history.
And there is something to that. People who want those jobs tend to be a little full of shit, and the decent honest folks will never rise through the ranks to get there..

She's suitable for the job (despite the strange seeming embellishments on her Linked In profile, which everyone exaggerates anyway.) That's why she has been going on so much about growth as she has spotted a fundamental weakness in our economy - an unsustainable debt to GDP ratio. She needs growth because otherwise it will become more and more expensive for us to borrow money, and the markets will expect to see a plan before lowering the interest rates which we can borrow on the money markets.

Unfortunately, I think the ultimate solution will be a return to austerity unless growth comes soon. That will be deeply unpopular and we will probably not go into the next election with Starmer as our PM and Reeves as our Chancellor. I don't think any of the political parties have the will to take on the billionaire class so we will have really poor living standards for many years I think. I'm not sure a lot of people appreciate how hard it may ultimately be.

jackb · 1000 Posts!?

I think the wests cowardly and often ignorant government people totally misread the situation.
Over the last few years many of the super rich have said they believe they should pay more in taxes and are willing to cough up

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

jackb wrote:
Over the last few years many of the super rich have said they believe they should pay more in taxes and are willing to cough up

The sensible ones do.

Why do we still have a monarchy but the French do not? It's because the British elite realised if they didn't share wealth with ordinary people then there would be trouble. The French aristocracy did not and out came the guillotines....

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

It's more than her LinkedIn profile though. I agree that nearly everyone embeliishes their CVs, but that's usually more down to exaggerating responsibilities, rather than blatantly falsifying start/leave dates and actual job titles - it seems a touch fraudulent to me "unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities."

She has said several times in speeches that she was an economist at the BOE for a 'decade'. She has also used 'best part of a decade'. If someone told me that I would assume they came up just short of being there for 10 years - 9 years and something or even 8 years and something at a push. But nah, not 5 and a half years, of which a year plus was studying and training . She was probably working as an actual economist for around 4 years tops.

What makes the lie even worse is that she has frequently said that her time as an economist at the BOE is why the public can trust her to handle the country's finances.

She can't even handle her own CV let alone the country's finances!

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Red Okktober wrote:
It's more than her LinkedIn profile though. I agree that nearly everyone embeliishes their CVs, but that's usually more down to exaggerating responsibilities, rather than blatantly falsifying start/leave dates and actual job titles - it seems a touch fraudulent to me "unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities."

She has said several times in speeches that she was an economist at the BOE for a 'decade'. She has also used 'best part of a decade'. If someone told me that I would assume they came up just short of being there for 10 years - 9 years and something or even 8 years and something at a push. But nah, not 5 and a half years, of which a year plus was studying and training . She was probably working as an actual economist for around 4 years tops.
What makes the lie even worse is that she has frequently said that her time as an economist at the BOE is why the public can trust her to handle the country's finances.
She can't even handle her own CV let alone the country's finances!

Fair enough. I haven't followed the story that closely but if it is more than just the usual fudging of qualifications etc that was dumb. It erodes confidence in her ability.

Her economic policy makes sense though. I just don't think it will work to improve living standards. Let's see what the Spring statement brings but if she signals that large cuts in public spending are on the horizon you will know that things are going to get bad.

Maddog · Go Outside

Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/15/rachel-reeves-has-three-options-to-dodge-an-economic-crisis-and-all-are-unthinkable

I'm glad I don't have her job. If she raises taxes, folks will howl. If she cuts spending folks will howl. If she kicks the can down the road and just throws it on the credit card, she will be irresponsible.
Lol....I doubt even she would have her job if she hadn't lied through the teeth about her working history.
And there is something to that. People who want those jobs tend to be a little full of shit, and the decent honest folks will never rise through the ranks to get there..
She's suitable for the job (despite the strange seeming embellishments on her Linked In profile, which everyone exaggerates anyway.) That's why she has been going on so much about growth as she has spotted a fundamental weakness in our economy - an unsustainable debt to GDP ratio. She needs growth because otherwise it will become more and more expensive for us to borrow money, and the markets will expect to see a plan before lowering the interest rates which we can borrow on the money markets.
Unfortunately, I think the ultimate solution will be a return to austerity unless growth comes soon. That will be deeply unpopular and we will probably not go into the next election with Starmer as our PM and Reeves as our Chancellor. I don't think any of the political parties have the will to take on the billionaire class so we will have really poor living standards for many years I think. I'm not sure a lot of people appreciate how hard it may ultimately be.

Yes fixing the problem is not going to be painless and the problem with politics is there is always the next snake oil salesman claiming it can be.

Even while I applaud Trumps cuts, he's not being honest with the American people. Even of he's successful it's going to be worse before it gets better. He should say as much..

ChaoticMusings

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

Machines were mice and men were lions once upon a time. But now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.