General Election July 2024

[bitchstewie]

Once again the Telegraph have their finger firmly on the pulse

The media has led the country into an anti-Tory fervour

[Teatowell]

S600BSB said:

It’s an awful error. Going to be very costly.

But probably not completely untrue. If Ukraine wasn’t threatening to joint NATO would the invasion have happened?

[captain_cynic]

Teatowell said:

But probably not completely untrue. If Ukraine wasn’t threatening to joint NATO would the invasion have happened?

Yes, yes it would

Next dumb question.

Edited by captain_cynic on Saturday 22 June 17:39

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

Once again the Telegraph have their finger firmly on the pulse

The media has led the country into an anti-Tory fervour

For those of us who don't have subscriptions to the Telegraph, what is the gist?

[Teatowell]

said:

What is it that makes you able to be so absolute?

[732NM]

Teatowell said:

What is it that makes you able to be so absolute?

Putins own words, he has had a hard on for Ukraine since day 1, seeing it as the first major step to recreating the USSR, which he has never accepted as dead.

He wrote a paper on what he thinks about the subject in 2021 before the 2nd invasion currently in progress.

You can find it by searching for "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"

His last 2 paragraphs in this article are

"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with
Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their
origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements
and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is
in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine,
in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been
and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one
thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

The man is full of st.

[donkmeister]

Mr Penguin said:

One thing all sensible people can agree Farage is definitely on the right side of history on:

I think you are going to have to be explicit in the thing you mean... Smoking fags?

[donkmeister]

Unreal said:

S600BSB said:

turbobloke said:

WCZ said:

Not seen it but did read farage said the west provoked Ukraine’s invasion

While I don't agree with that view, if that's what he said then he isn't alone. As per this LSE article, the Financial Times, the New York Times & the Guardian have suggested that NATO is partly to blame.

I agree with the title of the article.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/04/27/nato...

I think that interview is going to cost Reform some votes.

I think it will gain them some. Whether it's like their net immigration aims we will have to see.

It doesn't suit the West to look too closely at the background to the Ukraine conflict. You have to wonder why any debate is shut down so quickly. Reminds me of 'trusting the science'. There is no debate, Putin bad, West/Nato/Eu/Zelensky good.

What do you think needs to be debated?

Putin literally decided to invade another country, sending thousands of people to their deaths, being directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Rape, torture, pillage. Crimes against humanity so abhorrent that it makes many of us angry just to think about them. Blackmailing the world with the threat of nuclear conflict. Press-gangs of young Russian men to be sent to the meat grinder. What do you think needs debating about that? Genuine question; what is the debate?

Or do you want to debate the situation leading up to that? The oligarchy in Russia? Assassination of political rivals?

Or do you want to debate the situation before that where Putin was a KGB agent working with/over the Stasi in the DDR?

Do you want to debate the purpose of the cremation ovens in the German concentration camps too?

[bitchstewie]

Mr Penguin said:

bhstewie said:

Once again the Telegraph have their finger firmly on the pulse

The media has led the country into an anti-Tory fervour

For those of us who don't have subscriptions to the Telegraph, what is the gist?

Things aren't so bad. It's all a media pile-on.

[hidetheelephants]

Unreal said:

He's not the only person that thinks that, or at the very least the West are not blameless. It's not a conspiracy theory in line with fake moon landings.

Yes, but no; it's whiny russia-centric bks. The free world bent over backwards to pander to this preening murderous tyrant in charge of an oversized 2nd tier regional power. Rightly everyone tired of it and stopped caring.

[Mrr T]

crankedup5 said:

Mrr T said:

pingu393 said:

Mrr T said:

pingu393 said:

What unintended consequences do you think will befall the Labour government?

I think...

1. State pension is unable to be taxed at the moment, so they will have to allow the triple lock plus.
2. VAT on private schools will result in lots of "normal" kids not getting places when they are supposed to start secondary school, as the private school parents will get in there first.
3. Banning leasehold will result in massive rises in house prices, as the ground under a building will now need to be paid for, as well as the bricks and mortar.

Feel free to quote me. 100 days on (13 Sep 2024), you can point out how wrong I was . I hope I am - especially 2 and 3.

I suspect you do not know how leasehold works.

Tell me. Genuinely, I think leasehold is to cover the ground rent and is also sometimes used to upkeep of the structure of communal buildings.

Upkeeping communal buildings can be sorted, but the ground belongs to the leaseholder. If the leaseholder has to now sell the ground as well as the occupancy rights, will the price not have to rise?

Your right the lessor owns the land. And if a lease is only a few years the lessor has has value because he will get the land in a few years. However, on a long lease say 99 years of even 999 years the lessor has very little value because it's so long until they get the land back.

Getting did of leasehold on flats would require a major rewrite of UK property law. The growth of leasehold on houses is new and seems to have been an attempt to get extra value from buyers by charging fees which seem excessive. A change in the law on houses should not have much affect except on a few where the fees may affect the same value.

Newly built Leasehold houses to unsuspecting people under contracts drawn up by the house builder that would typically state annual leasehold payments the house buyer would be responsible for. Any anxiety of the house buyer would be soothed away with terms such as the house builder would not be raising lease payments by x% over x years. Problem arose for house buyers when the house builder having sold the last of his houses on the development the builder then promptly sold the leased element of the property on. Of course all the T& C would then change substantially leaving the house buyers facing monster increases in lease costs.
Government brought in protective legislation to stop any further such abuses, but its left those on pre legislative contracts saddled.

For once we agree. Its.within the power of the government to amend the law so anthocyanins the contract. Which in my view should be done.

[pingu393]

"anthocyanins" - I assume this was auto-correct, but I can't make any sense from it.

[Catweazle]

Mrr T said:

For once we agree. Its.within the power of the government to amend the law so anthocyanins the contract. Which in my view should be done.

Having a purple patch?

[pingu393]

Just to confirm, you all believe that the leasehold that you think Labour will be controlling by statute will be the maintenance part of the lease, and not ground rent. Am I correct?

[Murph7355]

valiant said:

Because the others are either in power or about to gain power (not sure why Abbot has been mentioned but hey ho) so they have to be very careful what they say as their words are listened to by both domestic and international listeners.

Farage can say what he likes at the moment because no one really takes him seriously and those that do fall into two camps of either hating the man or fawns over him. There are no real consequences or repercussions outside a very narrow window of opinion for whatever he says. If Sunak or Starmer says that, for instance “Ukraine is the fault of the West” then world leaders will listen and comment and that could very well have repercussions to future international relations. Farage says it and it makes a headline and then forgotten about.

There is a difference.

He also touched on this during the interview

[johnboy1975]

732NM said:

Teatowell said:

What is it that makes you able to be so absolute?

Putins own words, he has had a hard on for Ukraine since day 1, seeing it as the first major step to recreating the USSR, which he has never accepted as dead.

He wrote a paper on what he thinks about the subject in 2021 before the 2nd invasion currently in progress.

You can find it by searching for "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians"

His last 2 paragraphs in this article are

"I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with
Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their
origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements
and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is
in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine,
in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been
and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be
interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one
thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will
be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

The man is full of st.

Presumably Biden didn't mean this though, when he said he would "end" Nordstream II? (Nordstream pipeline was duly exploded, no doubt by Putin to teach himself a lesson )

https://youtu.be/xWUuhNd37WI?si=Gq_ZT0G4JTylJVI2

Ah, the beauty of pre conceived opinions

(I always try not to get drawn in, but then I think "fk it..." )

The "West" isn't entirely without blame, even if Putin must shoulder most of it (for being a warmongering ideologically driven nutcase). Which I think sums up Farage's position quite nicely (?)

And yes, on balance, you can't really say things like that if you are SKS, Jeremy Corbyn (imagine!!), Rishi, or Cameron...

[Diderot]

Gee whizz thanks Ed, you utter twunt for imposing the Climate Change Act on the country and butt-fking us for a generation committing the UK to spunking £80bn every single subsequent year on Net Zero twuntery. When there’s no back up plan. Dangerous muppetry.

Now the hypocritical offspring of Communists suggests the following in the Torygraph:

“Labour will scrap the Tory party’s 2035 target to ban new gas boilers, Ed Miliband has pledged.

In an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, the shadow energy secretary said no one will “be forced to rip out their boiler” under Labour’s plans for reaching net zero targets.

Instead, Mr Miliband will focus on financial incentives to encourage more people to install heat pumps.

Home heating accounts for around 14 per cent of the UK’s emissions, with the vast majority of homes using gas boilers, which both parties want to see replaced with heat pumps.

Rishi Sunak said in September last year that most homeowners would “only ever have to make the switch when you’re replacing your boiler anyway, and even then, not until 2035”.

In contrast, Labour say they are less focused on dates for a ban rather than providing incentives for people to adopt heat pumps.

Mr Miliband said: “On home heating – as we said in our manifesto – no one’s going to be forced to rip out their boiler. We’re absolutely clear about that.

“We haven’t stuck with the Government’s 2035 target when you can’t replace your gas boiler. I know that we’ve got to show that heat pumps are affordable and are going to work for people.””



What a hypocritical of the first rank he is. It’s because of you, Ed Minigland, that we are now on this insane unilateral suicidal pathway to abandon fossil fuels in the first place. Now, because you can sniff a little bit of power again for the first time in years in stead of a bacon sandwich, that you’re suggesting that massive row back. You give politicians a bad name, and that’s saying something.

Edited by Diderot on Saturday 22 June 21:04

Edited by Diderot on Saturday 22 June 21:05

[Kermit power]

donkmeister said:

Mr Penguin said:

One thing all sensible people can agree Farage is definitely on the right side of history on:

I think you are going to have to be explicit in the thing you mean... Smoking fags?

I'd assume the wearing of a full collar with black tie, but nobody questions that. It's the wearing of wing collars that causes mentalist levels of controversy!

[hidetheelephants]

Diderot said:

What a hypocritical of the first rank he is. It’s because of you, Ed Minigland, that we are now on this insane unilateral suicidal pathway to abandon fossil fuels in the first place. Now, because you can sniff a little bit of power again for the first time in years in stead of a bacon sandwich, that you’re suggesting that massive row back. You give politicians a bad name, and that’s saying something.

Do please elucidate what's so bad about wanting to unshackle the economy from importation of hydrocarbons? The sooner the world is freed of dependence on dictators and stone age theocracies the better.

[sim72]

pingu393 said:

What unintended consequences do you think will befall the Labour government?

I think...

1. State pension is unable to be taxed at the moment, so they will have to allow the triple lock plus.
2. VAT on private schools will result in lots of "normal" kids not getting places when they are supposed to start secondary school, as the private school parents will get in there first.
3. Banning leasehold will result in massive rises in house prices, as the ground under a building will now need to be paid for, as well as the bricks and mortar.

Feel free to quote me. 100 days on (13 Sep 2024), you can point out how wrong I was . I hope I am - especially 2 and 3.

I don't think (2) is going to be much of an issue. I can't see *that* many parents removing their children from private schools, and there are approximately 450,000 vacant places in the state system (and rising, due to falling birthrate) compared with a total private school population of 554,000.