LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Given that the Northern Network contained more than one 'project' that was already built, I think we can deduce that the list and map were cobbled together in an afternoon and are not a plan in any meaningful sense.kingstongraham said:They're almost impressive in how much of a shambles they are.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I mean that's not even enough time for the thickos they're looking to attract to have forgotten what they promised.0
-
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
-
Quite respect that response tbh- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
As far as I can tell he doesn't say whether that new knowledge now means he doesn't support it.pangolin said:Quite respect that response tbh
0 -
When he started talking about "push factors", I wondered whether he was going to go on to talk about not bombing other countries being a good start.kingstongraham said:
As far as I can tell he doesn't say whether that new knowledge now means he doesn't support it.pangolin said:Quite respect that response tbh
0 -
There you goFirst.Aspect said:
Well let's see. The costs are a spending cycle or two away yet and Labour's angle in the meantime will be to improve ties with Europe, undo some of the damage to trade the Tories have done, and grow the economy that way. They have several years within which it will still be credible to blame the Tories for most of what is wrong, so it wouldn't necessarily be set in stone anyway.kingstongraham said:
They have studiously not opposed anything so far, and I don't expect this to be any different.First.Aspect said:
I think you have this wrong to be honest. Manchester is booming despite the Tories, not because of them, and there's a large population and a lot of parliamentary seats associated with both of the rail projects. Having money spent on your region tends to be a vote winner.kingstongraham said:
If you think Labour are going to commit to anything at all that might cost money, I think you're mistaken.First.Aspect said:I mean hand wringing aside, won't Labour be poised to make the announcement that it will go ahead about 5 mins after Sunak cancels it? So this whole thing is just an exercise in how bad it will play out for the Tories.
I think that, along with the pledges to cancel the ban on pork scratchings, and allow local councils to create more parking spaces outside the off-licence, the Tory's genuinely though that the idea to cancel HS2 would be met with a chorus of "about time".
Nothing must be possible to be costed and used to say they can't afford it without increasing taxes.
Living in London, you wouldn't know any different.
On a national level, committing to spending an additional £x bn within the next spending cycle will be costed by the Tories, and then as always, Labour will be asked where the money is coming from. I would be amazed if this is any different to any other spending commitment.
Bear in mind that the Tories will be planning to use this saving to justify tax cuts.
I accept that it's hard to imagine Starmer being decisive enough to announce an actual policy, though.
0 -
It's either dithering or a no. Or alternatively its some actual truth, i.e.kingstongraham said:
There you goFirst.Aspect said:
Well let's see. The costs are a spending cycle or two away yet and Labour's angle in the meantime will be to improve ties with Europe, undo some of the damage to trade the Tories have done, and grow the economy that way. They have several years within which it will still be credible to blame the Tories for most of what is wrong, so it wouldn't necessarily be set in stone anyway.kingstongraham said:
They have studiously not opposed anything so far, and I don't expect this to be any different.First.Aspect said:
I think you have this wrong to be honest. Manchester is booming despite the Tories, not because of them, and there's a large population and a lot of parliamentary seats associated with both of the rail projects. Having money spent on your region tends to be a vote winner.kingstongraham said:
If you think Labour are going to commit to anything at all that might cost money, I think you're mistaken.First.Aspect said:I mean hand wringing aside, won't Labour be poised to make the announcement that it will go ahead about 5 mins after Sunak cancels it? So this whole thing is just an exercise in how bad it will play out for the Tories.
I think that, along with the pledges to cancel the ban on pork scratchings, and allow local councils to create more parking spaces outside the off-licence, the Tory's genuinely though that the idea to cancel HS2 would be met with a chorus of "about time".
Nothing must be possible to be costed and used to say they can't afford it without increasing taxes.
Living in London, you wouldn't know any different.
On a national level, committing to spending an additional £x bn within the next spending cycle will be costed by the Tories, and then as always, Labour will be asked where the money is coming from. I would be amazed if this is any different to any other spending commitment.
Bear in mind that the Tories will be planning to use this saving to justify tax cuts.
I accept that it's hard to imagine Starmer being decisive enough to announce an actual policy, though.
it might genuinely be more problematic, depending on what the Tories do to nuke the project.
Half of his problem is he can't bring himself to dumb things down enough for a moron-sized sound bite. Kinnock had the same problem.0 -
As someone on Twitter remarked. Labour are inheriting a shitshow built on salted ground.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Haha just saw this. So funny, she should have done that in her coronation costume and waved her sword a bit.kingstongraham said:I forget- is she the normal one?
Just imagine if Trump had made that speech. …….
0 -
Meh, ultimately if the Tories sell the land, stand contractors down etc, it'll be as good as starting over.First.Aspect said:
It's either dithering or a no. Or alternatively its some actual truth, i.e.kingstongraham said:
There you goFirst.Aspect said:
Well let's see. The costs are a spending cycle or two away yet and Labour's angle in the meantime will be to improve ties with Europe, undo some of the damage to trade the Tories have done, and grow the economy that way. They have several years within which it will still be credible to blame the Tories for most of what is wrong, so it wouldn't necessarily be set in stone anyway.kingstongraham said:
They have studiously not opposed anything so far, and I don't expect this to be any different.First.Aspect said:
I think you have this wrong to be honest. Manchester is booming despite the Tories, not because of them, and there's a large population and a lot of parliamentary seats associated with both of the rail projects. Having money spent on your region tends to be a vote winner.kingstongraham said:
If you think Labour are going to commit to anything at all that might cost money, I think you're mistaken.First.Aspect said:I mean hand wringing aside, won't Labour be poised to make the announcement that it will go ahead about 5 mins after Sunak cancels it? So this whole thing is just an exercise in how bad it will play out for the Tories.
I think that, along with the pledges to cancel the ban on pork scratchings, and allow local councils to create more parking spaces outside the off-licence, the Tory's genuinely though that the idea to cancel HS2 would be met with a chorus of "about time".
Nothing must be possible to be costed and used to say they can't afford it without increasing taxes.
Living in London, you wouldn't know any different.
On a national level, committing to spending an additional £x bn within the next spending cycle will be costed by the Tories, and then as always, Labour will be asked where the money is coming from. I would be amazed if this is any different to any other spending commitment.
Bear in mind that the Tories will be planning to use this saving to justify tax cuts.
I accept that it's hard to imagine Starmer being decisive enough to announce an actual policy, though.
it might genuinely be more problematic, depending on what the Tories do to nuke the project.
Half of his problem is he can't bring himself to dumb things down enough for a moron-sized sound bite. Kinnock had the same problem.
I guess the hope for the project is that the Tories are so useless, they won't be able to sabotage it properly.
0 -
It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.0 -
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
0 -
Yeah, voted for what?
Last vote was for BJ. Who knew it was possible to go downhill from there?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
They have confirmed that they are lifting the safeguarding on land purchased for phase 2a in the coming weeks. It's beyond cancelling and into deliberate vandalism of a major infrastructure project that was being promised as still on track only a few months ago. And people are expected to believe that the farcical Northern Network, some which hasn't lasted the week, can be relied on as some sort of compensation? Why would anyone believe a single word he says about anything - including within his own party?Jezyboy said:
Meh, ultimately if the Tories sell the land, stand contractors down etc, it'll be as good as starting over.First.Aspect said:
It's either dithering or a no. Or alternatively its some actual truth, i.e.kingstongraham said:
There you goFirst.Aspect said:
Well let's see. The costs are a spending cycle or two away yet and Labour's angle in the meantime will be to improve ties with Europe, undo some of the damage to trade the Tories have done, and grow the economy that way. They have several years within which it will still be credible to blame the Tories for most of what is wrong, so it wouldn't necessarily be set in stone anyway.kingstongraham said:
They have studiously not opposed anything so far, and I don't expect this to be any different.First.Aspect said:
I think you have this wrong to be honest. Manchester is booming despite the Tories, not because of them, and there's a large population and a lot of parliamentary seats associated with both of the rail projects. Having money spent on your region tends to be a vote winner.kingstongraham said:
If you think Labour are going to commit to anything at all that might cost money, I think you're mistaken.First.Aspect said:I mean hand wringing aside, won't Labour be poised to make the announcement that it will go ahead about 5 mins after Sunak cancels it? So this whole thing is just an exercise in how bad it will play out for the Tories.
I think that, along with the pledges to cancel the ban on pork scratchings, and allow local councils to create more parking spaces outside the off-licence, the Tory's genuinely though that the idea to cancel HS2 would be met with a chorus of "about time".
Nothing must be possible to be costed and used to say they can't afford it without increasing taxes.
Living in London, you wouldn't know any different.
On a national level, committing to spending an additional £x bn within the next spending cycle will be costed by the Tories, and then as always, Labour will be asked where the money is coming from. I would be amazed if this is any different to any other spending commitment.
Bear in mind that the Tories will be planning to use this saving to justify tax cuts.
I accept that it's hard to imagine Starmer being decisive enough to announce an actual policy, though.
it might genuinely be more problematic, depending on what the Tories do to nuke the project.
Half of his problem is he can't bring himself to dumb things down enough for a moron-sized sound bite. Kinnock had the same problem.
I guess the hope for the project is that the Tories are so useless, they won't be able to sabotage it properly.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
From June.
Facts have changed my arse.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?0 -
So, not building it shows they don't believe in Britain?rjsterry said:From June.
...
Facts have changed my censored .The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Maybe they think everyone is as lazy and incompetent as them and won’t easily uncover their past statements.rjsterry said:From June.
Facts have changed my censored .0 -
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?
0 -
What were voters expecting in December 2019? In all seriousness.First.Aspect said:
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?
After the May debacle, and then BoJo coming in? Stability? Consistent policy making?
0 -
They voted Tory knowing that Boris was unlikely to last 5 years so that was baked into their decision makingFirst.Aspect said:
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?0 -
I agree. How can they have expected a lazy pathalogical liar who broke parliamentary norms, illegally, to get there to be anything other than a lazy pathalogical liar later. Same with Brexit and how the EU would behave. They were warned, but chose to believe the lies. We've had a decade of willful wishful thinking in this country, and a lot of people should really be taking a long hard look at themselves.rick_chasey said:
What were voters expecting in December 2019? In all seriousness.First.Aspect said:
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?
After the May debacle, and then BoJo coming in? Stability? Consistent policy making?
The things that have happened since then are verging on the extraordinary, though.
0 -
Honestly, it's the collective electorate's fault for giving the Tories an 80 seat majority after all that had happened up till that point.
Plenty went into that and we need to look at the experience of giving party members votes and whether that is actually a sensible strategy for choosing leaders (hint, it isn't) for the main parties, but that's the reality.
Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.
0 -
First paragraph is fair. Nobody, and I mean nobody, expected the final sentence.First.Aspect said:
I agree. How can they have expected a lazy pathalogical liar who broke parliamentary norms, illegally, to get there to be anything other than a lazy pathalogical liar later. Same with Brexit and how the EU would behave. They were warned, but chose to believe the lies. We've had a decade of willful wishful thinking in this country, and a lot of people should really be taking a long hard look at themselves.rick_chasey said:
What were voters expecting in December 2019? In all seriousness.First.Aspect said:
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?
After the May debacle, and then BoJo coming in? Stability? Consistent policy making?
The things that have happened since then are verging on the extraordinary, though.
Didn't we all think getting rid of BJ was going to be a good thing? Alas...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
In what way did anyone vote for this? It wasn't in the manifesto, and it's not been put before parliament. It's just a diktat from the consultant in charge.
Manifesto:Consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings of HS2 and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome0 -
The end of Brexit being the only issue discussed in Parliament, and the end of Corbyn as a political force.rick_chasey said:
What were voters expecting in December 2019? In all seriousness.First.Aspect said:
Yes, yes you haven't hit upon some great insight there.rick_chasey said:
Sure they did. Representative democracy etc.First.Aspect said:
Ha ha ha.rick_chasey said:It is also sensible not to immediately overturn whatever the previous government has just put in.
That’s not healthy behaviour for a democracy.
Britain voted for this.
No, seriously?
Let me put it this way - how many parliaments have seen three prime ministers or anywhere close to this level of either front bench churn or abandonment of key policy? In the defence of all the gullible muppets in the north who voted Tory in 2019, none could reasonably have predicted where we are now.
If you were running this argument when BJ was kicked out, I'd tend to agree. i.e. Elect a fat lazy liar, who then lies and doesn't pay attention to important things, bad stuff happens. All entirely predicable.
But Truss? Then Sunak? Then Sunak, Republican Edition (available for a limited time only)?
After the May debacle, and then BoJo coming in? Stability? Consistent policy making?
Prior to this mess Boris did manage two terms as London Mayor. So his fans could argue that serving at least a full term as PM wasn't a total impossibility.0 -
An 80 seat majority to this lot, honestly, if you weren't expecting this, you were not paying attention.0
-
You are unfairly suggesting that anything that happened afterwards is a predictable consequence of a preceding event. It is like saying you should have known by getting on that plane that the pilot would suffer from hypoxia, because boarding the plane was a preceding event. It was perfectly predictable that this would be a dreadful dreadful government, but not that it would be three or four dreadful governments.rick_chasey said:Honestly, it's the collective electorate's fault for giving the Tories an 80 seat majority after all that had happened up till that point.
Plenty went into that and we need to look at the experience of giving party members votes and whether that is actually a sensible strategy for choosing leaders (hint, it isn't) for the main parties, but that's the reality.
Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.
Your last point is well made though, but Starmer will find that tricky to sell.
0
