advertisement


The Premiership ofLiz Truss. Sept 2022-Oct 2022. New PM time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheDecameron said:
Mogg and Baker are a pair of sanctimonious religious hypocrites. Mogg will vote for Johnson because he’s a lying con artist and Baker can no longer seem to vote for him because he’s a lying con artist.
Click to expand...

The new lunatic fringe view is that Baker is a globalist sell-out and shill. https://twitter.com/MartinDaubney/status/1584111983258873856

They believe Sunak, Hunt, etc are mounting a globalist coup. Because doing what most other advanced economies do (i.e., not crashing your currency by allowing an idiot to take the decisions) makes you a globalist. Very much Qanon territory.
 
Tony L said:
Mogg is a total spiv IMHO. I’d not take his support as anything more than he thinks he stands a chance of getting inside a Johnson cabinet (which would help his financial business) and knows he has zero chance of anything in a Sunak or Mordant government. Everything he does seems founded on self-interest and financial gain. A total moral vacuum.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how I characterised him a few days back. He employs his erudition and laconic manner to disguise self-interest as economic truth. On a very superficial level he no doubt convinces many cap doffers and working class Tories that he must know what he's dribbling about, but any close examination reveals that there is neither internal logic, nor consistency over time in any of it.
Definitely the Grytpype Thynne of UK politics.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I can’t agree. Matthew posts from a position of considerable knowledge, but if he expresses disagreement, he does so politely and in the spirit of debate. It’s much easier to argue with him than with many other posters, IME, because it doesn’t descend to the personal.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more. On these matters I find Matthew the signal amongst the huge amount of noise. Totally rubbish post, Molee.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
I think a Labour Gov would make some significant changes, albeit not as many as I'd want.

The obvious example is the combination of a State 'owned' British Energy co that woild get on with building wind farms and other non fossil sources that we'd benefit from in terms of 'state' income and lower cost, greener, energy from locat sources. The reality is the the UK is well placed to do well from this. Although I must admit I'd now tend to prefer Scotland to become independent and go further *and* then have the so much of the area available for wind/wave/tidal become a Scottish natural resource that - unlike fossil - isn't a consumable nor a cause of climate change.

And after the tory panto the LP might even end up deciding that PR would be better than subjecting us all to more of the ERG loonies under the guise of a 'tory' gov again in the future.
Click to expand...

I was under the (hopefully mistaken) impression that the "British Energy" co. that Starmer promised would just be A.N. Other energy co, like Octopus, or Scottish Power. Owned by the public but operating in the same phoney energy market where the price of all energy, renewable or not, is set by the day's most expensive gas price. I.e. not an actual energy producer, just another brand of supply company but with profits going to the Treasury.

I hope I'm wrong.
 
I'm genuinely ducking sick of this situation.:mad:

All trough feeding, self servings bar stewards.:mad:

Is no one interested fixing the country?:(

I have friends abroad and they just laugh at our situation. :mad:

The whole thing is very depressing
 
To return to the issue of reporting just for a moment, what the media chooses to report and what it chooses not to report absolutely shapes the narrative, and the narrative shapes discussion.

Journalists have decided to report the story that Johnson has 100+ backers and thus created a narrative and a discussion among sophisticated and non sophisticated news consumers alike about the Return of the Boris.

On the other hand, as Peter Stefanovic points out, Steve Baker’s call to break international law barely gets a mention, and the nonsense about printing money and government debt having to be repaid by our children and grandchildren is repeated time and again without comment.

Our journalism chooses the narrative and shapes and constrains discussion. It is an active agent of framing what politics is about and needs to be recognised as such
 
AnilS said:
I'm genuinely ducking sick of this situation.:mad:

All trough feeding, self servings bar stewards.:mad:

Is no one interested fixing the country?:(

I have friends abroad and they just laugh at our situation. :mad:

The whole thing is very depressing
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that we have consistently voted for this shit for decades
 
Tigerjones said:
Show off. I’m totally unsure about everything apart from fireworks and they never seem to be discussed on pfm.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about anything except drum machines, let’s have a fireworks & drum machine niche thread. Maybe we could do a gig one day :)
 
FWIW BBC has Sunak about 130, Johnson around 50 and Mordaunt about 23.
That makes Mordaunt Short...:D

Fireworks...only three or four basic types I believe.. Flares, Roman Candles, Mortars and
Rockets.... or somesuch..
One day I'll regale you with tales of how we used to make multi stage rockets and other stuff.
 
wulbert said:
I was under the (hopefully mistaken) impression that the "British Energy" co. that Starmer promised would just be A.N. Other energy co, like Octopus, or Scottish Power. Owned by the public but operating in the same phoney energy market where the price of all energy, renewable or not, is set by the day's most expensive gas price. I.e. not an actual energy producer, just another brand of supply company but with profits going to the Treasury.

I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, it's even less than that. The idea is that it's a publicly owned vehicle to coordinate investment in green and renewable energy, but the implication is that most of the funding will be private. Classic Labour-right sleight of hand, based on what I've read. Maybe the reality, when it's fleshed out, will be better, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
ks.234 said:
To return to the issue of reporting just for a moment, what the media chooses to report and what it chooses not to report absolutely shapes the narrative, and the narrative shapes discussion.

Journalists have decided to report the story that Johnson has 100+ backers and thus created a narrative and a discussion among sophisticated and non sophisticated news consumers alike about the Return of the Boris.

On the other hand, as Peter Stefanovic points out, Steve Baker’s call to break international law barely gets a mention, and the nonsense about printing money and government debt having to be repaid by our children and grandchildren is repeated time and again without comment.

Our journalism chooses the narrative and shapes and constrains discussion. It is an active agent of framing what politics is about and needs to be recognised as such
Click to expand...
See also the total mainstream media omerta on the Al Jazeera documentary about the Labour Party. Amazing, given that it directly addresses one of the biggest political stories of the last few years (allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party). The idea that journalists dispassionately report what's happening is delusional.
 
ks.234 said:
Lord Mervin King on LK talking bollocks about the problem of ‘printing money’ and ‘putting debt onto our children and grandchildren’.

The fact that this nonsense goes unchallenged is what is really wrong with our economy.
Click to expand...
I didn't see the program. But surely "printing money" without reasonable bound and very careful targetting into areas of genuine investment would do precisely those things?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top