advertisement


Question Time

I was very impressed by Fiona's haute couture dress.

It made the contestants look very drab.

An old game show trick.

Otherwise it was a yawn.
 
Bob McC said:
Stopped watching it a long time ago.
Continuing to watch it and letting it get to you like that is just flagellation.
Click to expand...
Not the word I would use, but I get your point and I probably should stop watching it. I suppose I live in hope that one day politicians will be better than this.
 
Brian said:
Not the word I would use, but I get your point and I probably should stop watching it. I suppose I live in hope that one day politicians will be better than this.
Click to expand...
Some are. But we keep voting for the ones that aren’t.
 
Robert Buckland trying and failing to defend Johnson’s long history of racism was most amusing. The Plaid MP, Liz Saville Roberts, handled the statues of racists thing superbly IMO.
 
ks.234 said:
Some are. But we keep voting for the ones that aren’t.
Click to expand...

Whether depressingly. or reassuringly, politicians have always been awful. Charles Greville, writing in 1837:

'The noise and confusion are so great that the proceedings can hardly be heard or understood, and it was from something growing out of this confusion and uproar that the Speaker thought it necessary to address the House last night and complain that he [might] resign the Chair.'

The culprits were Tories.
 
Am I missing something? Last post in this thread 18 months ago?

Whatever.. just listening to Tory Damien Hinds deliberately waffling, obfuscating and bullshitting endlessly, while fellow Tory Fiona Bruce lets him. Disgusting spectacle.
 
Tories are getting a damn good kicking, which is always good to see. That dark-money funded “think-tank” corporate shill/Spectator writer/utter gobshite Kate Andrews is being platformed yet again though. Why the BBC keep putting her on is beyond me.
 
Last night was interesting. There's often comment about the 'packing' of the audience with plants etc. It certainly seemed so last night, but for once it worked to the advantage of the broader electorate and very much to the disadvantage of the Tory drone..whoever he was.. put up to try to defend the indefensible. The audience seemed to be all NHS workers, mostly very articulate and all scoring heavily against the Tory apologists.
This a.m the first thing I see is BBC News switching to cover Starmer speaking in NI and presenting himself as PM in waiting.
Even Fiona seemed to finally grasp that the Tories are completely screwed at the next election.
I was strongly reminded of a comment someone made to me years ago..to the effect that once the mainstream media show signs of shifting allegiance, or these days, diminishing deference, to the sitting Govt...then their number is up.
 
I didn’t watch it, but a couple of clips on Twitter suggest Ash Sarkar was asking the right questions.
 
I just hope you're right. We so desperately need fairer more effective government than the Tories, but, as ever I simply cannot see any party who I trust to delver that. It needs a government in power for 2 or three terms, and with a decent majority to effectively restore the NHS, the education system, environmental matters and all, and honestly? Does the public, can the public take the cost hit? Be willing to take it?
I just see us sinking slowly into some awful vaguely right wing brain dead mediocrity of sold services and an impoverished and ignored swamp of the poor and sick.

Christ, It's dickensian London all over again.

Eeyore.
 
Fatmarley said:
That's how it came across to me too.

The alternative (private) would cost the public a hell of a lot more.
Click to expand...
Of course, but privatisation is the only alternative if you buy into the Tory narrative that the public supplies government with money.

Even if you believe those lies, another alternative is for the government to borrow money from itself, which is what it does every time it 'borrows' money
 
It's also worth remembering that 'government borrowing' is likely to form a substantial part of your, and my, pension fund. So if government reduces or eliminates borrowing, my pension has to be invested in more volatile, less secure vehicles. I'd rather not, on the whole, thanks.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
It's also worth remembering that 'government borrowing' is likely to form a substantial part of your, and my, pension fund. So if government reduces or eliminates borrowing, my pension has to be invested in more volatile, less secure vehicles. I'd rather not, on the whole, thanks.
Click to expand...
Yes, and on a wider scale Goverment ‘borrowing’ is an investment opportunity for all sorts of institutions. We would do well to remember that the Bank of England came into being as a vehicle to buy government debt and sell it on for profit. Government debt is actually an asset.

The narrative that ‘borrowing’ it is a burden on future taxpayers is nothing more than another device to justify moving money from public pockets to private pockets
 
ks.234 said:
Of course, but privatisation is the only alternative if you buy into the Tory narrative that the public supplies government with money.

Even if you believe those lies, another alternative is for the government to borrow money from itself, which is what it does every time it 'borrows' money
Click to expand...

I don't think it's question of people buying into "the Tory narrative that the public supplies government with money".

I suspect most people wouldn't regard it as a peculiarly Tory narrative but rather a self-evident truth and description of the classic economic model that generation of us, left, right, and centre, have been brought up on.

Whether there are viable alternative economic models which would actually make a difference is another matter and remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top