U-turns

[Gurnelista]

This kind of shilly-shallying is typical of the government and its followers at present.

Take that blue fanzine, the Daily Mail – barely a couple of weeks ago it was singing Truss’s praises with headlines congratulating her on a ‘Freedom’ budget and a ‘True Tory’ budget, while yesterday it was asking ‘How Much More Can Truss And The Rest Of Us Take?’ Or, take the Telegraph yesterday, with ‘Project Fear Was Right All Along’. Project Fear has now become Project Truth, it seems.

Absolutely unbelievable – a U-turn from the Torygraph so big it must be visible from space!

Even the faithful admit the party is more than just an embarrassment or a laughing stock… it’s economically and morally bankrupt.

But that’s not all. We should ask how has this come to be the most catastrophic period of political leadership this country has ever seen, possibly the worst anywhere in the civilized world. For twelve years we’ve seen the liars, cheats and loonies take over the whole asylum, and pursue policies of political and moral madness, while the deluded nodded and applauded unthinkingly and unquestioningly – the real enemies of this country.

Parallels with SUFC are tempting. Some of us sounded the alarm bells early on, while a handful carried on applauding incompetence and mediocrity in the boardroom and onfield until it was far too late, and the club was twice relegated. You know who you are. Now we’re almost bottom of our latest league, and out of the FA cup. In fact, thanks to people so far out of touch, we’ve become the Tory party of non-league football. How much worse can it get???

[Northumbiron]

Spot on Gurny.

We also have the “impartial” BBC censoring Gary Lineker’s observations.

“You’re shit, and you know you are!”

[Iron-awe]

Shall we all end up in room 101 for expressing doubt in our leaders 🤔

[Bucksiron]

Ha ha, Gurny, of course we’ve been here before. In fact it’s been far worse than this. SUFC would have been dead and buried in the 1970s if the current system of relegation from the basement league was in place at that time. So let’s not kid ourselves about that, though obviously things are in a terrible state at GP.

As for the Government, it is, indeed, a shambles, but claiming it’s the “most catastrophic period of political leadership this country has ever seen” is absolute nonsense. Anyone who can remember the 1970s knows things were far worse than they are now.

As for what’s happening now I’m appalled by the Tory MPs representing the party. Yes, the mini-budget was appallingly handled, which is an enormous shame because it was fundamentally what the country needs. The markets have played the Government like a fiddle, targeting the UK and making a fortune by shorting the pound while Tory MPs have behaved like a bunch of school children. Senior members of the party should have rallied behind the PM and told the markets there would be no return to printed money and easy pickings. But now it’s back to square one and an opportunity for change has been squandered.

As for Labour, I can live with them under Starmer although the party’s plans for net zero on steroids will create their own economic nightmare. The fundamental underlying problem for all of this is crazy energy prices brought on by the absurd drive to net zero, which Putin’s exploited to the full. This is the real issue and unless and until energy prices are brought under control the West’s economic problems will just get worse, yes, even with Sir Keir at the helm.

[Siderite]

The problem is that ‘anyone who has lived through the 70s’ is that it’s an opinion, not a fact. That catch-all doesn’t work for everyone over 50.

[Siderite]

And, no, that’s not actually me agreeing or disagreeing with you, before you start. Someone having an opinion that today’s leadership is worse than the 70s is just as valid as the opposite. Stating otherwise, as if it’s a fact, changes nothing.

[64]

“appallingly handled”you just can’t admit that Toryism as a philosophy doesn’t work in the modern world, the markets have turned their backs on them ,they know it too.
The markets just cannot be trusted to behave in a socially responsible way.

[Heath]

“The markets have played the Government like a fiddle, targeting the UK and making a fortune by shorting the pound”.

And Kwasikaze was complicit in this. No surprise that he hosted a champagne reception for hedge fund managers on the day of the disaster. Clearly it wasn’t a disaster for the market speculators and no doubt Kwasi will walk into several directorships now that his political career is over.

And despite all of this, you wanted Truss to continue with her feed the rich starve the poor policies. Tells me a lot about your compassionate side and your judgement – WRONG AGAIN!!!

Growth, growth, growth?

1997 UK GDP per head 26.7k Labour take power.

2008 UK GDP per head 48.0k. Labour leave power. Tories take over.

2022 UK GDP per head 47.3k. Tories are apparently “running” the country

In 2006, the UK was 12th in the list. We are now 34th in the list, tumbling since the Tories took over and tumbling since Brexit. All during 14 years of the Tories.

It’s not just about the disaster of the last 4 weeks. 14 years of disastrous WORLD BEATING??????leadership.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Gurnelista

[Iron-awe]

Even renaged on the basic tax cut which I find surprising and only six months promised help on energy bills not two years. More austerity on the way, good luck paying your mortgages and sorting out your energy bills come next April but hey we are all in it together remember. PS. Truss surely cannot survive this, just an appalling example of somebody attempting to run the country. Oh and Buck’s the government doesn’t run the markets but has to use financial intelligence when constructing a budget to try and keep them onside, if your policies trash the economy inside a week, be prepared for an arse kicking.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Siderite

[Deereyme66]

Always someone or something else’s faulty. This time it’s those dastardly markets so cherished by the Tories. Truss and Kwarteng effed up big time through a lack of foresight and complete incompetency. Thankfully the public recognise it.

[Bucksiron]

Of course it isn’t some else’s fault and that’s a ridiculous thing to say, Deerey. What part of “shambles” don’t you understand? Or maybe you didn’t read my comment properly?

And I’m not blaming anyone but Truss and the Tories, Heath, so that’s also a load of cobblers. The Government’s screwed up massively, as have the Tory MPs. I’ve made that very clear.

None of that alters the basic facts. The markets have targeted the UK even though our economy’s in better shape than many others, including the eurozone. Having screwed the mini-budget, which as I’ve said on a number of occasions was appallingly handled, Truss should still have stuck to her guns, reminded the markets in no uncertain terms that the basic plan would greatly increase the likelihood of significant growth and her MPs should have rallied behind her.

Finally, Siderite, I can assure you that what’s happening now is nothing like as bad as the seventies when both the Tories under Heath and then Labour under Wilson and Callaghan presided over an even bigger shambles. That isn’t opinion but fact; and if you don’t believe me, you need to check your facts.

[Siderite]

No, Bucks, saying the 70s were worse is an opinion, not a fact.

[Siderite]

Sure, you can put forward a stronger case for the 70s being worse, but it isn’t unfalsifiable like actual facts, There is always an argument for the other side, even if it might be weaker and less grounded in evidence.

Again, no opinion of mine is given here. My point here is semantics.

[Deereyme66]

‘Truss should still have stuck to her guns, reminded the markets in no uncertain terms that the basic plan would greatly increase the likelihood of significant growth and her MPs should have rallied behind her.’

Preposterous claim, but quite an unsurprising one given it’s that sort of bullish attitude towards the EU that’s had it so clearly cowtowing to our demands. What a joke!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Heath]

Not sure that the coward’s choice of the sassy and unflappable Ms Maudant as her stand-in to take the flack was the brightest move by dizzie Lizzie.

Comparison was obvious when she showed up for 15 minutes of gormless gurning whilst Hunt was making his statement.

[Bucksiron]

Siderite, I had a fabulous time in the 1970s. One of, if not the best decade of my life. Music, university, no worries and girls. But I’d say by the standards of the ‘reasonable man’, which I clearly wasn’t (!) it was a dreadful time. Many people actually enjoyed WW2, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable — or incorrect — to say the 1940s were worse than the 1970s.

Deerey, it isn’t preposterous at all. One of the biggest failures of UK governments over the past 25 years has been to focus on short-term, vote-winning policies at the expense of long-term security and prosperity. You were all moaning and groaning about austerity while supporting a socialist approach to massive borrowing under Corbyn, compared to which Truss’s plans were a drop in the ocean. The markets have become immune to risk, just taking the printed money and hedging currencies, which isn’t difficult given the strength of the dollar; and even that’s mainly because the Fed hiked interest rates when the BoE should have been doing the same.

Despite all of this, Labour believes it’s become the ‘responsible manager’ of the economy. Yeah, right. Starmer’s plan to hit net-zero by 2030 is pure fantasy. What people on the left forget is that renewables account for a very small percentage of the country’s energy use. The cost of achieving this will be eye-watering to say nothing of the infrastructure requirements. It’s totally and utterly bonkers and if Starmer puts this at the centre of Labour’s strategy then I wouldn’t bet on an outright Labour victory no matter how badly the Tories are doing. That is, of course, providing the Tory MPs actually grow some balls and stop behaving like a nursery class, which I wouldn’t bet on.

Ultimately, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, all politicians are pretty useless regardless of their political party.

[Siderite]

Where did I say otherwise? Please stop putting words into my mouth and making a straw man to suit yourself.

The statement which Gurny made was that this current time is the “most catastrophic period of political leadership this country has ever seen.” This could mean many things besides just the economy. Undoubtedly the economic crises of the 70s plays a role, but equally the upheaval now has many things the 70s didn’t. PMs, chancellors and cabinet members are being upturned at a faster rate, which gives a more unstable impression of governance. Therefore, there is an argument here for the political leadership being more catastrophic than the 70s.

Regardless, it’s an opinion, not a sodding fact. Which was my point. Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many, or that I am arguing against there being a strong case for the 70s being worse for chaos and catastrophe, despite me clearly stating on two occasions now that I am not putting forward my own opinion on which is worse. Stop misrepresenting me for once. I don’t think my words are this unclear, and I specifically state that I am not making an argument in favour of one over the other. I repeat, it was solely over semantics, since the statement is not a fact.

[Siderite]

*Yet you keep trying to argue that the 70s were tough for many as if I disagree.

[Siderite]

Also, the idea that net zero policies are unpopular enough to cause serious damage to Labour chances seems wishful thinking:

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-support-majority-net-zero-policies-unless-there-is-a-personal-cost

Whether Tories could undermine this in debate, I don’t know, but it’s brave to suggest this is an automatic vote loser when polls suggest otherwise.

And, no this is not an argument that there are no problems which need to be met with net zero policies, before more words get put in my mouth.

[Heath]

….”best decade of my life.
Music, university, no worries and girls”.

So how did you pay for this great time? Same as me, you got a university grant, cost of living for booze, food, bills and accommodation were nothing like they are today.

Get a decent job, save for a deposit for a house pretty quickly, buy one and sell it for twice the price within 5 years, buy a better house, repeat.

Don’t go to university, find a job, apprenticeship and tech college, well paid job with years ahead of you. Steel worker, fitter, plumber, welder, miner etc. Of course there were hard times, but most of my non uni mates had 30+ year jobs, retired with a good pension.

Not like that now is it? Costs for younger people much higher, chance of affording a house much lower, wages depressed, crap pensions, less job security.

I’d take the 70s for all the things you listed above. I’d also say that opportunities to get on were also better.

Struggle to see how my children and their mates will have the same level of comfortable living as many within our age group have. They rely more on the older generation for financial support today than I ever did in the 70s.

[Gurnelista]

Poor old BI tries turning every which way in a bid to appear credible and the result is a word salad full of unconnected points. The one about lack of growth is familiar tho’ – Tory MPs are currently using this one in media interviews, but rather more accurately they claim that stagnation goes back to 2010 or so, in which case they have a point. Any further and they don’t, as Heathy points out above.

This problem of low growth is no surprise when we consider how those on no and low incomes have been used as a petri dish for free-market economics. The question has been ‘would free markets lead to growth and provide an escape route from austerity?’ Well, no, they’ve conspicuously failed. Those of us who inhabit reality know that untrammelled wealth and raging free markets does not mean everyone will get rich. It does not mean a few small crumbs of Thick Lizzie’s wealth will come tumbling down onto your little table, BI, as we’ve seen.

To keep thinking otherwise is to treat free market economics as a religion, a matter of belief. But, the fetishizing of markets is a dangerous thing. Reality won’t adapt to your desires, as we’ve seen with Brexit. This statement of the obvious is obvious to all except the fanatics. The ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith is the dead hand of zero growth in 2022.

But if there’s any cold comfort in ‘dead hands’, it’s that we are witnessing the last dying throes of this zombie government. It will probably stagger on, kicking and wretching its way from crisis to crisis for the next few months, but then it’ll be over.

These crises has been largely self-inflicted because the party has no idea what it stands for these days. We’ve seen how 2011-2015 there was a loss of direction of travel. Faced with egregious market failure, the party didn’t know what to do – turn left, turn further to the right, or steer a middle course. The loonies grabbed the wheel, lurched further right and blamed Brussels, rather than their own mistakes. And post-2015, everything was couched in terms of ‘leave or remain’, no matter how economically illiterate, unfair or bonkers.

There was also progressively poor leadership, going from bad to worse, and a loss of self-discipline in the party, from Cameron to May to Johnson… and now Truss.

Some say Truss should’ve crushed the wets in her party, Thatcher-style. But that would have exacerbated the Tory problem. Silence all diverse opinions, promote the yes-men, surround yourself with equally myopic loyalists (like Johnson did), and you’re doomed to failure (like Johnson was). It’s what Prawn did with the SUFC board. And as we’ve seen with country and club, you end up going off a cliff.

There’s a business lesson here for you Bucksiron, one F.O.C. And it ain’t pretty.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Heath

[Northumbiron]

Wilson and Heath were both competent PMs. Their records are there for all to see. They spoke like leaders and their behaviour in Parliament was not like the playground spats we see nowadays.

Callaghan was not as capable, but he was still a gentleman.

Neither Johnson nor Truss are fit to lace the shoes of any of those three.

From the post war Attlee government right up to (but not including) the Thatcher years successive administrations put the country first. Ted Heath took the country into Europe. Perhaps some at the time didn’t think it was a good idea, but boy oh boy! We’ve learned the hard way that it definitely was.

Since the me, me, me, loadsamoney 80s the Tory party has been about what’s in it for us? Look after yourself and your mates. Grease the palms of the big party investors. Dismantle services, transport, power, industries, the NHS. Let’s give tax cuts to the fat cats who support the party. Let’s cut benefits for those on low incomes because they’re not putting money into the economy anyway.

The gap between rich and poor has never been wider but nothing has been done about it. Instead the government have wasted billions on Brexit, HS2 and unusable PPE they got from their chums during the pandemic.

They are not a party of the people they are a party of self interest.

And before words are put in my mouth, I’m talking about those in power. I don’t for one minute believe every Tory voter is like that.

The decent ones must be tearing their hair out!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Gurnelista

[Bucksiron]

Same old, same old. If anyone truly believes things are worse now than in the 1970s they need their heads examining. Mind you, as a result of net zero we’re likely to be facing power cuts, which is truly ridiculous in the 21st century. I tell you what, Sidey, I’ll arrange for you to live in the UK in the 1970s and we’ll see how you get on. That is if you can get out of your door for the rubbish piled on the streets, afford to buy anything with almost 25% inflation and interest rates at almost 14% (they actually peaked under Thatcher in the early 1980s).

If you want to look at what’s driving poverty, it’s energy costs. The reason for this isn’t down to Putin, although he’s exacerbated the problem, but crazy net zero targets. Energy costs went through the roof because renewables couldn’t cope with demand and natural gas was in very shorty supply due to the Western World failing to protect supplies in order to meet green targets. Putin simply took advantage of this, so not only did this create energy havoc but also played a role in starting a war.

Absolutely nothing frustrates me more than the most needy in society not getting the help and support they need. It isn’t even as though the money isn’t there. It’s a question of whose pockets it’s going in to and it isn’t the most well-off as many of you like to claim. The truth is that getting the richest to pay more will make relatively little difference. The top 10% of UK households already pay around 50% of UK tax revenues and the top 20% pay over 60%, with the top 50% paying nearly 80%.

But, of course, you lot aren’t interested in the facts. If you really were you’d look at where most of the tax money actually goes. A great deal of it ends up in the pockets of the public sector with their gold-plated pension schemes. The public sector pension liability is close to GDP, which is an astonishing fact given this is money from the UK people, including the poorest. But, hey, if it’s going to support our bloated public sector then that’s all OK. I also commented on NHS pensions the other week, which again are grossly unfair on the poorest.

So, would I be prepared to contribute more to help the neediest in society? The answer is a resounding “yes”. The problem is that very little of it would ever trickle down to them because it would be used — in fact it is being used — to cover the costs of those who really don’t need it. Like the consultant anaesthetist I know who is enjoying golf while working part-time for the NHS, which is facing horrendous backlogs created by lockdowns that weren’t necessary in the first place. Or the retired GP couple on a pension income of £96,000 a year.

[Siderite]

Can you please learn to read, Bucks? For the fourth time I was not saying today is worse than the 70s. My sole point is that saying the 70s is more catastrophic is an opinion, not fact. I am not denying the bad times of the 70s. I should not have to keep explaining this to anyone more intelligent than a 5 year old.

I am really bored of words being put into my mouth and being straw manned, with accusations that I am somehow acting badly, when it’s you doing so.

[Siderite]

Then, of course, you will kick up a fuss because I have showed some disdain here. Play stupid games, twisting words, and you will get disdain.

[Heath]

“Same old, same old. If anyone truly believes things are worse now than in the 1970s they need their heads examining”.

I have not made the points in my post above before on this forum, so hardly the same old same old. The only same old same old on here is your brusque manner in rejecting any alternative opinions to your own.

Are you denying that the opportunities for your financial progression was not started in the 1970s? Mine was via university, my steelworker mates got a career, relatively good pay and a pension.

None of the above for today’s youth, warehouse packers and parcel delivery men.

[Northumbiron]

I thought the tread was about the integrity of our Prime Minister?

If you think Wilson, Heath or Callaghan were worse than Ms Truss (or Mr Johnson) then you either need a time machine or a reality check.

True that we’ve had no power cuts, and refuse isn’t piling up in the streets. Yet! But it could be heading that way.

[Iron-awe]

Mate of my son works for EDF and he says they are already discussing how to prioritise expected black outs this winter.

[Deereyme66]

Gonna need more than fork handles this winter. About 100 should cover it…

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/uk/when-blackouts-happen-uk-time-day-why-3883812

[Bucksiron]

And why are power cuts likely? What an absurd situation.

“None of the above for today’s youth, warehouse packers and parcel delivery men.”

That is not the case, Heath, there are many more opportunities for higher education now than there were in the 1970s; and if people want to learn or retrain there are numerous ways of doing so that cost much less than in the 1970s, especially online.

On top of that the relative cost of goods has decreased enormously. A very good indicator for this is how many people own cars. In 1970 around 50% of UK households owned at least one car while that figure is now over 75%. I grew up without a telephone in the house while now virtually every single person in the family has their own phone.

The real disaster for people now is the price of energy. This is affecting everything, including interest rates. The reason interest rates are rising is to address inflation, which has primarily been driven by… energy prices.

Net zero is driving poverty.

[Author]

Posts