On 11 Sep 2023 at 9:01pm Tom Pain wrote:
It seems the government's energy bill passed with a huge majority. One reason could be that labour abstained! Opposition? Property owners risk up to £15,000 fine or max 1 year in jail for not complying with regulations.
On 12 Sep 2023 at 9:10am Green Sleeves wrote:
Outrageous....bet this is all Hunter Bidens fault, or at least his laptop. The WEF are to blame, they are ruining the planet with their green ideologies. "You will own nothing and be happy".
Tom Pain is going to jail for not having double glazing.
On 12 Sep 2023 at 11:41am Tom Pain wrote:
It is ourageous. Are you in favour of it or just looking for a chance to mention your pal Hunter.
On 12 Sep 2023 at 1:39pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I just saved you the bother of mentioning him.
"You will own everything and still be a miserable tw@t" - this is a more accurate comment that applies to most billionaires.
On 12 Sep 2023 at 4:11pm Tom Pain wrote:
Would you not object to people forcing their way into your home and fitting a smart meter against your will?
On 12 Sep 2023 at 7:27pm Green Sleeves wrote:
They've been saying that for years now. But I have just recently got a smart meter and it's fine. I have noticed a lot of scaremongering going on around them, but it tends to be all the usual suspect types who fear any kind of change or technology.
On 12 Sep 2023 at 10:18pm Tom Pain wrote:
First of all, I don't like the idea of some jerk having the right to invade my home. Secondly, I'm not ecstatic about the government turning my electricity off if they feel like it. Where does the fear come in - from your head- not mine. I wonder if your compliant attitude is driven by fear, of what I have no idea, but it seems rather spineless to me. You seem quite trusting of the tories and heedless of where they're going in spite of your mouthing off at them. Have you got family connections like the prodigal son?
On 13 Sep 2023 at 10:59am Nevillman wrote:
I don't know anything about this bill. What is wrong with the regulations imposed on property owners. It might be that the labour party think it is a reasonable proposal. Opposition shouldn't just oppose everything the government does for the sake of it.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 11:55am Green Sleeves wrote:
To be fair to TP, we aren't going to see any radical shifts in policy with the next Labour Party. Stephen Fry got it bang on the other day when he said that the Labour Party are basically offering the tories "without the clowning around". This might be fine for some, but don't expect much in the way of any progressive change. Just slightly less "banter" for the media to indulge in. That isn't what the country needs, we need change of direction not same path with blander personalities afraid of lefties like Corbyn more than anything else.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 1:29pm Nevillman wrote:
I'm not sure the "to be fair to TP" bit is necessary green as I always try to be fair to him. I was just trying to clarify what in the energy bill he was upset about. I hadn't read any of the comments beyond his original point but connection problems meant my point was delayed and I now assume he is upset about compulsory smart meters. Can't see the problem with that as it happens.
Your further point is more interesting. To a large measure government is about how the government will tax and spend. The electorate may be stupid as we have discussed earlier but they don't generally like the thought of paying more tax. That scared the electorate off Corbyn as they didn't believe his "fully costed" mantra as well as not thinking he was a suitable PM. If labour make lots of promises about their planned tax and spending increases they will not get elected.
The majority of the electorate are way to the right of you and to where the country was 50 years ago. Your desires green, will ensure more Tories rather than a government which although not perfect, does more to regulate capitalism, look after the less fortunate and give everyone a fairer chance.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 2:49pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Corbyn was hardly consistently unpopular - only the 2019 General Election could point to that. But the huge leap from Labours dismal standing in 2015 under Miliband, saw a massive gain in 2017, due to a robustly democratic-socialist manifesto. In 2019, a broadly similar manifesto was set by Labour, but they suddenly lost enormous support? Why? I suspect a whole heap of reasons.....but Brexit, a nations/medias peculiar and pathetic love affair with conman Boris Johnson, and persistent "he hates JEWS" attack line against Corbyn. All of which was total horse-5hit. Corbyns policies didn't change, people just got brainwashed and the landscape got unnecessarily complicated. We ultimately got the harder Brexit that i guess we all desired....
To me, this suggests that Corbyn wasn't the main problem. The guy is clearly still popular, and could quite feasibly win his seat as an independent. This suggests he has been a stellar MP, and yea, if you look at his Commons voting record, it tends to consistently fall on the right side of history. As for tax and spend policies....they were in line with basically what most people when polled want. 95% of peoples taxes were not going to rise, and only the 5% of top earners would pay more. There wasn't even any wildly ambitious spending plans either, although I do seem to remember my tory family members being spooked about Labour proposing free Broadband by 2030. Even though I would expect most developed countries in the world to have free/basic bb provision by 2030.
Incidentally, my preference for a Labour Starmer government still far outweighs another 5 years of Tory rule, who I think have got to the point where they may be deliberately trying to throw the election away (so they don't have to take more damage for trying to clean up their own mess). I think pretty much ANY Labour leader at this point would win the election (even the much maligned Diane Abbott), which is a shame that we have such a weak one at the moment, as it will ultimately not take advantage. They'll then get blamed in 5 years time for not fixing all the previous tory governments problems (because they ultimately were committed to the previous tory spending plans anyway), and we'll get the Tories back in again. Rinse and repeat. Open your eyes.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 4:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
Whoever's in charge won't make a bit of difference if we keep on with the UN's climate agenda. How much do you think it will cost? Take the national electricity grid. That will need rewiring with much heavier kit if everything is electric powered. Is there enough copper in the world to even do it, not to consider the rest of the world. To be really farcical, can you imagine China joining in. They produce half of the world's co2 emissions and seem to produce nearly everything! If we go carbon neutral we will be able to produce almost nothing. Do you know they want to ban shipping in 2030? How will we get food? Oh yes, they want to rewild a sixth of the farmland when we can't grow enough as it is. How many asylum seekers a month is it, a thousand or so? No private cars in the 15 minute towns. Everything on the cards is so totally unrealistic and you intend to vote for the impossible. I'd get out tomorrow if there was anywhere to go but the insanity is worldwide. How much are we paying to finance the Ukrainian depopulation fiasco? Ive only touched on a fraction of the insanity and you think voting is going to help.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 5:52pm Nevillman wrote:
Corbyn looked impressive in 2017 because he was up against may, a deeply unpopular and ineffective prime minister. Votes for Corbyn were votes against her. Even Diane Abbott would have looked good against her. If people thought he had a chance of being prime minister they would not have voted for him though. His supporters like to blame the media for his defeat in 2019 but really green it was him and Johnson's political ability. I, additionally will not forgive Corbyn for his pathetic view on Europe. Sadly Johnson does appeal to lots of voters who as we agree are often stupid and I share your fear that he is not done for yet. My eyes are very open to that possibility but thanks for the instruction in that department.
The press do not win elections. Supporters of the Tory party like those papers but people are mainly influenced by their impression from TV. Labour had to pick someone who appeared to have a broad appeal. We shall just have to hope that starmer is up to the job. He will never convince hardliners like you but you had your chance and saddled us with the current lot. Maybe he will pleasantly surprise us and we can look forward to many years of increased social justice, an NHS and education system to be proud of, real corporate responsibility, increased prosperity, peace, a safeguarded environment and free broadband.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 7:00pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL i love the notion that Corbyn got votes from people who just disliked Theresa May (i.e tory voters). Nothing to do with the fact that his progressive policies were actually popular with young people and the majority of working people (hence why Corbyn won the majority of the working age vote)? I happen to think a lot of people just saw him as someone real - an actual populist that wasn't a devious pr1ck like Trump or Boris, and whos values and principles still to this day remain consistent and not just said to please a certain group at that specific time. (hence why even centrist loveys like Rory Stewart have come out in defence of the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn and called out Starmer for it).
Blaming Corbyn and the left is par for the course but no, this one is definitely on the mainstream media and the electorate buying into the lies. As history has already shown, the country demonstrated poor judgment on multiple successive occasions and we got/get what we deserved. Corbyns reputation is safer than most previous Labour leaders, and his successor for that matter. I suppose Starmers enormous appetite for wealth at the tax-payers expense is the kind of thing that most Brits would do in his position.....Corbyn meanwhile barely cost the tax payer anything, both as party leader or his 4 decades plus as an MP. He'll be standing in 2024, where have all those other grifters gone? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair? David Miliband? David Cameron etc etc etc. Couldn't wait to get out of Parliament and serve themselves some of that good post-politics wonga. Class.
I think Labours new party slogan should be "5 more years" 
On 13 Sep 2023 at 8:10pm Nevillman wrote:
Very sadly I agree with your point about the appeal of Corbyn to large numbers of young people. It would have been good to see him as prime minister but I'm afraid he never was going to appeal to the majority of voters. I dearly wish he could have won.
I don't blame politicians who having got to what ever level they want and then decide to get a living elsewhere doing so. Former prime ministers on the back benches not good.
On 13 Sep 2023 at 9:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I don't blame career politicians to do that, no. Those that perhaps treat it as a stepping stone, or to forward their agenda and gaining influence then commercially exploiting that later on when done with public service....i can see the appeal. But I prefer the politicians who do it as a vocation and as their civic duty. They exist, and not just the obvious ones like Corbyn, but unfortunately they are not as commonplace as they should be. We tend to end up with opportunists..
I quite like seeing Theresa May, Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn contributing from the backbenches. Although Ed Miliband is more back in the frame again, but I don't think he has been biding his time!
On 13 Sep 2023 at 9:20pm Tom Pain wrote:
But he didn't. That won't stop you going on and on, which reminds me......brexit, that should fill up a few more threads. We're in a Public Private PartnerShip of State. It's a corporatocracy, which, as Mussolini said, is another name for fascism. You're living in the past.
On 14 Sep 2023 at 6:35pm Nevillman wrote:
Maybe we are constrained by our first past the post system. It makes the labour party and Tory party very broad churches that cannot meet the needs of all its supporters. Proportional representation in some form might be a solution. Too late to prevent the brexit debacle unfortunately.
No idea what you're talking about Tom. Always interested in what Mussolini has to say about up to the minute UK politics though. Should stop me living in the past.
On 14 Sep 2023 at 10:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
You have no idea what I'm talking about because you have no wish to. Our government is in partnership with other corporations which are not democratically elected. I did not say Mussolini had anything to do with our politics, that was you. He did know what fascism was and explained it rather well. It describes something not too dissimilar to the state we are in- corporatism- a blending of government and corporations. I leave the reader to draw his,her,or it's own conclusions. How was Truss got rid of, by the way?
On 15 Sep 2023 at 8:24am Nevillman wrote:
What you call corporatism Tom has long been known as a mixed economy with goods and services being provided by the private and public sector. I think near enough every economy in the world uses it with varying amounts of government input.
The private sector is not democratically elected except in the sense that by buying the goods and services they provide, the public elects to use their product rather than from one of their competitors.
Fascism is actually quite hard to define but whatever Mussolini said, it wasn't that.
Please don't ask me to explain the conclusion I have drawn from your posts.
On 15 Sep 2023 at 3:23pm Tom Pain wrote:
What is a partnership in commercial law, it's a bit more than mixing the economy. How did they get rid of Truss?
On 15 Sep 2023 at 4:38pm Nevillman wrote:
I believe a partnership is a legal form of business arrangement in the private sector of the economy. I'm sure you could look it up to find out specifically if you are interested. Nothing to do with "mixing the economy" whatever that is meant to mean.
No idea about Truss. Why don't you Google it if interested? If, as I suspect, you have a theory about it why don't you just say what your theory is.
I really can't help thinking you would get a lot more out of properly studying economics rather than looking up random things on the internet.
On 15 Sep 2023 at 11:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
What are the government's partnerships then? It was TheCity as reported everywhere. Which lells me where power lies. I really can't help thinking I wish you would stop telling me you wish I would stop....
On 16 Sep 2023 at 5:02pm Nevillman wrote:
I don't know anything about government partnerships. The government has to work with private companies and the city. I haven't ever told you to stop anything that I can recall.
On 19 Sep 2023 at 8:36pm Tom Pain wrote:
Looking up random things on the internet perhaps?
On 19 Sep 2023 at 8:52pm Nevillman wrote:
Fair enough Tom. I seriously suggested spending some time reading up on some basic economics because I thought you might like it. Many of the points you make are economic and I'm sure that some basic grasp of economic theory would interest you and help you ask and answer some basic questions.