Met caught out targetting Black drivers..?

[srb7677]

Thanks for the advice SRB. No, I think I'd better keep working, hadn't I? Wouldn't do to go complaining about my job and the long hours I work on an internet forum where no one gives a flying feck would it?

If you pulled your head out of your arse for long enough, you'd have seen that the purpose of that wasn't to complain but to inform the forum why I lacked the time and energy to fully engage for a while, lest I be accused of running scared. So it was relevant to my comparative lack of responses.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a cheap dig, will you!

[DeppityDawg]

If you fancy your chances in comedy, my most heartfelt advice would have to be - don't give up the day job. Lol

Thanks for the advice SRB. No, I think I'd better keep working, hadn't I? Wouldn't do to go complaining about my job and the long hours I work on an internet forum where no one gives a flying feck would it?

[Sheepy]

I would just like to say when politicians start saying they want other politicians thrown in jail, a shit storm always follows ask the Americans. 10 grand sounds like a shit storm from here.

[srb7677]

Oh dear. It looks like Jez's bro "Piers" has been arrested and fined 10 grand for organising an illegal rally - eg the one claiming that Coronavirus is all a conspiracy

I reckon it was the 'Blairites' what did it. After all, they did everything else

If you fancy your chances in comedy, my most heartfelt advice would have to be - don't give up the day job. Lol

[DeppityDawg]

Oh dear. It looks like Jez's bro "Piers" has been arrested and fined 10 grand for organising an illegal rally - eg the one claiming that Coronavirus is all a conspiracy

I reckon it was the 'Blairites' what did it. After all, they did everything else

[srb7677]

Well Thomas, you haven't really effectively challenged me on the policies I listed which are demonstrably and self-evidently moderate, not to mention popular. We lost in spite of them not because of them, and for other reasons. Yet because you have no effective counter and struggle to portray them all as hard left, you dismiss all of it as a rant. And insist like a Blairite in blaming the policies for our defeat. Presumably even the ones the SNP support and/or have enacted? Lmfao

[Thomas]

Thomas, you have posted evidence suggesting that in 2019 people didn't believe that what we were promising was deliverable. I have conceded already that free broadband was a promise way too far, and the promise to compensate the Waspi women was entirely uncosted. These were mistakes. This goes some way towards contributing to that public impression. Yet I have posted incontrovertible evidence as to the popularity of our 2017 policies, which is broadly what I think we should have offered again in 2019, with no uncosted add ons.

And you insist on portraying that as "hard left" which you also  lazily equate with momentum, which not every left winger is even a member of. I an nothing to do with momentum, for example. Yet what was actually hard left about our policies? We planned to abolish tuition fees and build more social housing. And before you bleat about that being hard left and unaffordable, your precious SNP has already done it in Scotland!!! We planned to give private tenants some measure of security of tenure. What is so extreme about that? We planned to cap rents which can be set at rip off levels right now. This would actually have saved money by reducing the housing benefit bill.

We planned to increase the minimum wage for all to a level that is needed to live on - ie a living wage. Again nothing unreasonable about that. And again by raising the tax take and reducing the welfare bill it would have raised and saved money.

Our policy of lowering the voting age to 16 was entirely cost free as not a fiscal measure at all. And something the SNP fully backs too!

Our policy of modest tax increases on the very highest earners plus a big crack down on evasion and avoidance would have raised revenue. And more than enough to pay for the abolition of the bedroom tax.

As for our policy of nationalisations, this was hardly mass nationalisation. All we planned to bring under public ownership was the essential utilities and railways, plus the post office, which are state owned in almost every other western capitalist system bar the USA. In fact, the Tories have already effectively brought the railways back in house as an emergency measure, simply by suspending the private franchises, at no public cost. The cost of nationalising the other industries in terms of interest and debt repayments would have been covered by diverting the sums paid to shareholders into taxpayer state coffers. It was entirely costed at the time and was recognised to be by independent analysts.

As for borrowing to invest in infrastructure, this is something all governments do and it generates economic benefits, and makes total sense especially when borrowing costs are historically low. And the raised economic activity itself helps reduce welfare whilst increasing the tax take. The sums involved were also far less than the current Tory government has borrowed. And this kind of Keynesian spending boost is common in western capitalist nations, and hardly constitutes extreme Marxism. Some of this spending would have gone into greening our economy which is essential for all nations to do if we are ultimately to stave off ecological disaster.

So you are misrepresenting our policy offerings as hard left when they are not. They are actually in the social democratic mainstream, or at least certainly were pre-Blair. This is hardly the communist manifesto or barricades in the streets, .

And after four decades of Thatcherism, much of it is so obviously desperately needed that this is the root source of much of it's popularity as revealed by polls.

As for your utterly fake disgust at the way I speak about Blairites - you're a frigging right wing, Tory-loving, Brexit-loving aberration of an SNP man - why do you even care? It's not your party. And Labour has long been two parties in one. The Blairites have long waged war on the genuine left. And the left massively distrusts them and reacts against them in response. And the Blairites believe in Thatcherism-lite, whilst the left hates Thatcherism, all it's works, and all who support it. That you purport to hold such strong negative views on the way I speak about Blairites, though, is frankly laughable. You are not even in my frigging party, . And certainly cannot claim to care one iota about it or about it's internal dynamics.

This post is just yet another spittle flecked rant.

I havent misrepresented anything. I posted evidence from both within and without your own labour party as to why labour lost , and keep losing  .So dont shoot the messenger steve.

Your own english people called you marxist , and didnt support of believe in your policies enough to vote you into government not once , but feckin twice in 2 years so what are you talking about?

Are you accusing me of walking around 55 million english people "misrepresenting" you and your party or holding a gun to englands head and telling them not to vote for labour?

As for your utterly fake disgust at the way I speak about Blairites - you're a frigging right wing, Tory-loving, Brexit-loving aberration of an SNP man - why do you even care? It's not your party. And Labour has long been two parties in one. The Blairites have long waged war on the genuine left. And the left massively distrusts them and reacts against them in response. And the Blairites believe in Thatcherism-lite, whilst the left hates Thatcherism, all it's works, and all who support it. That you purport to hold such strong negative views on the way I speak about Blairites, though, is frankly laughable. You are not even in my frigging party, . And certainly cannot claim to care one iota about it or about it's internal dynamics.

Listen to yourself!

Another hard left momentum rant , anyone who disagrees with you or points out the obvious is a hard right tory you scream.

The blairites are actually members of your own party FFS. How could anyone elect a party into any form of governance that is so bitterly divided by the hate you constantly spew?

Hoist by your own petard so you are with every ranting post!

[srb7677]

Thomas, you have posted evidence suggesting that in 2019 people didn't believe that what we were promising was deliverable. I have conceded already that free broadband was a promise way too far, and the promise to compensate the Waspi women was entirely uncosted. These were mistakes. This goes some way towards contributing to that public impression. Yet I have posted incontrovertible evidence as to the popularity of our 2017 policies, which is broadly what I think we should have offered again in 2019, with no uncosted add ons.

And you insist on portraying that as "hard left" which you also  lazily equate with momentum, which not every left winger is even a member of. I an nothing to do with momentum, for example. Yet what was actually hard left about our policies? We planned to abolish tuition fees and build more social housing. And before you bleat about that being hard left and unaffordable, your precious SNP has already done it in Scotland!!! We planned to give private tenants some measure of security of tenure. What is so extreme about that? We planned to cap rents which can be set at rip off levels right now. This would actually have saved money by reducing the housing benefit bill.

We planned to increase the minimum wage for all to a level that is needed to live on - ie a living wage. Again nothing unreasonable about that. And again by raising the tax take and reducing the welfare bill it would have raised and saved money.

Our policy of lowering the voting age to 16 was entirely cost free as not a fiscal measure at all. And something the SNP fully backs too!

Our policy of modest tax increases on the very highest earners plus a big crack down on evasion and avoidance would have raised revenue. And more than enough to pay for the abolition of the bedroom tax.

As for our policy of nationalisations, this was hardly mass nationalisation. All we planned to bring under public ownership was the essential utilities and railways, plus the post office, which are state owned in almost every other western capitalist system bar the USA. In fact, the Tories have already effectively brought the railways back in house as an emergency measure, simply by suspending the private franchises, at no public cost. The cost of nationalising the other industries in terms of interest and debt repayments would have been covered by diverting the sums paid to shareholders into taxpayer state coffers. It was entirely costed at the time and was recognised to be by independent analysts.

As for borrowing to invest in infrastructure, this is something all governments do and it generates economic benefits, and makes total sense especially when borrowing costs are historically low. And the raised economic activity itself helps reduce welfare whilst increasing the tax take. The sums involved were also far less than the current Tory government has borrowed. And this kind of Keynesian spending boost is common in western capitalist nations, and hardly constitutes extreme Marxism. Some of this spending would have gone into greening our economy which is essential for all nations to do if we are ultimately to stave off ecological disaster.

So you are misrepresenting our policy offerings as hard left when they are not. They are actually in the social democratic mainstream, or at least certainly were pre-Blair. This is hardly the communist manifesto or barricades in the streets, .

And after four decades of Thatcherism, much of it is so obviously desperately needed that this is the root source of much of it's popularity as revealed by polls.

As for your utterly fake disgust at the way I speak about Blairites - you're a frigging right wing, Tory-loving, Brexit-loving aberration of an SNP man - why do you even care? It's not your party. And Labour has long been two parties in one. The Blairites have long waged war on the genuine left. And the left massively distrusts them and reacts against them in response. And the Blairites believe in Thatcherism-lite, whilst the left hates Thatcherism, all it's works, and all who support it. That you purport to hold such strong negative views on the way I speak about Blairites, though, is frankly laughable. You are not even in my frigging party, . And certainly cannot claim to care one iota about it or about it's internal dynamics.

[srb7677]

lame excuses of being worn out with work.

Thanks for your understanding.

To be fair Steve, being worn out is just another way of saying that you are disorganised.

To be fair, that is bollocks. If you are working a 13 hour day plus an hours commute that leaves only ten hours for everything else including sleeping. And a 13 hour day exhausts you no matter how well organised the rest of it is. It also leaves little time for unimportant little internet corners like this.

Only working a 10 hour shift today though and have a spare 90 mins right now, so might respond to a few general points by our resident Tory and Blairite loving angry Scot. No time for detailed responses to multiple posts.

[Borchester]

lame excuses of being worn out with work.

Thanks for your understanding.

To be fair Steve, being worn out is just another way of saying that you are disorganised.

[srb7677]

lame excuses of being worn out with work.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Sheepy]

Because this won't give the raised fist salute, a baying mob intimidates her, getting right in her face. People being intimidated in their own homes and treated like this just for going out for a meal - disgusting, and yet more reason not to kowtow to these fecking zealots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA-mbSkQM6M

Well Labour certainly don't represent the Scots and they certainly don't represent the English, maybe the Welsh but that is debatable.

[DeppityDawg]

Because this won't give the raised fist salute, a baying mob intimidates her, getting right in her face. People being intimidated in their own homes and treated like this just for going out for a meal - disgusting, and yet more reason not to kowtow to these fecking zealots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA-mbSkQM6M

[Sheepy]

And much of his evidence is just Blairite shit argued by Blairites, whom he seems to love. It is by it's very nature disingenuous in the extreme. I have read some of it and it is shit. Thomas seems to agree totally with the Blairite assessment of everything. And cites Blairites as evidence. I don't buy what he's selling. It's a pile of poop.

No it isn't. What is it about "2017" that absorbs your attention so much? How does it alters the perceptions of people who voted in 2019, or alter the fact that Labour were comprehensively defeated under one of the most unpopular leaders of all time? If the "policies" under Corbyn were so 'moderate', then why didn't the party's moderate support vote for them? You keep going on about "Blairites", which could easily be another name for "Moderates", but you don't want to say moderates, because that would suggest you aren't? You struggle not to write the word "scum" after "Blairites", your whole attitude towards what is a statistically large element of both current and former Labour supporters is risible. You've called me "right wing" when I'm a moderate. Am I "scum" too?

You're seemingly in good company with a spiteful world view that's taken hold of the left - as demonstrated by Neil Coyle over the Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia lyrics issue with the BBC. He isn't just insulting Torys when he calls them 'fat old racists' and 'absolute sh***bag w*****s' - he is insulting large tracts of his own party support who AREN'T woke warriors and are sick of this navel gazing - then when an election comes around and what should be Labours OWN natural supporters then don't vote for them, they are at a loss to understand why

The Labour party keeps insulting and demeaning its OWN support, and than wonders why it keeps losing elections

Aw don't the Labour party care about your political sensibilities dawg, Shame on them, I sent them a message it must be the best part of 13 years ago, saying if they didn't start acting like a representative of the working class in the UK, we would be forced to take other measures, they returned my email, with their own spam instead. Such is life.

[DeppityDawg]

And much of his evidence is just Blairite shit argued by Blairites, whom he seems to love. It is by it's very nature disingenuous in the extreme. I have read some of it and it is shit. Thomas seems to agree totally with the Blairite assessment of everything. And cites Blairites as evidence. I don't buy what he's selling. It's a pile of poop.

No it isn't. What is it about "2017" that absorbs your attention so much? How does it alters the perceptions of people who voted in 2019, or alter the fact that Labour were comprehensively defeated under one of the most unpopular leaders of all time? If the "policies" under Corbyn were so 'moderate', then why didn't the party's moderate support vote for them? You keep going on about "Blairites", which could easily be another name for "Moderates", but you don't want to say moderates, because that would suggest you aren't? You struggle not to write the word "scum" after "Blairites", your whole attitude towards what is a statistically large element of both current and former Labour supporters is risible. You've called me "right wing" when I'm a moderate. Am I "scum" too?

You're seemingly in good company with a spiteful world view that's taken hold of the left - as demonstrated by Neil Coyle over the Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia lyrics issue with the BBC. He isn't just insulting Torys when he calls them 'fat old racists' and 'absolute sh***bag w*****s' - he is insulting large tracts of his own party support who AREN'T woke warriors and are sick of this navel gazing - then when an election comes around and what should be Labours OWN natural supporters then don't vote for them, they are at a loss to understand why

The Labour party keeps insulting and demeaning its OWN support, and than wonders why it keeps losing elections