On Tue 17 Oct at 10:06pm Tom Pain wrote:
In view of the extraordinary number of excess deaths reported by the ONS; I wonder if our MP will be attending the parliamentary debate on Friday. Considering her devotion to our national health, I would imagine that Mrs Caulfield would be anxious not to miss it. We shall see.....
On Wed 18 Oct at 4:27pm Dougs92 wrote:
Would like to speak to mr Kenneth ward please
On Thu 19 Oct at 1:26pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I do wonder if you were concerned about excess deaths pre the pandemic, but yes they are still indeed higher than average pre pandemic levels so this is concerning, but at least they are way down from 2020 and 2021 levels which saw staggering spikes of excess deaths.
No shock or surprise they are higher though. The NHS took a battering from the pandemic and years of tory austerity. Let's hope the next lot do a slightly better job of it, despite similar economic pledges. Be hard to see anyone doing worse so we will take a tory-lite blue labour0 government for 5 years before they inevitably get voted out for being too similar to the tories and creating the same mess. We have seen this movie many times before.
On Thu 19 Oct at 2:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
It's nothing whatsoever to do with politics. Consider the fact that both parties have twice refused to debate the matter by cowardly leaving the house like children putting their fingers in their ears. The media have acted dumb too, it's pathetic. It's no wonder I refuse to vote for any of the useless sold out hypocrites.
On Thu 19 Oct at 3:56pm Green Sleeves wrote:
The thing is tho, you weren't calling the first two years of the pandemics excess deaths as "extraordinary"....in fact you put your fingers in your ears like a child when anyone raised the issue. Now that they have fallen but still above pre pandemic levels, you are officially concerned?
On Thu 19 Oct at 10:48pm Tom Pain wrote:
The flu season always causes "excess deaths" and that one was particularly so. You are incorrectly assuming that I said the opposite because I don't think the counter measures the government used were effective or even safe which is a different matter entirely. Something is causing excess deaths and the government is doing all it can to ignore it, ditto the media. What can't they face? Why is the opposition not pushing it to the max? It's strictly hush-hush and the fix is in
On Fri 20 Oct at 8:56am Green Sleeves wrote:
I don't think you know what "excess deaths" means in this context. Sure, flu kills people every year, some times more than others. But even the worst flu-seaons have never been even close to killing the numbers of people that died of COVID in 2020 and 2021.
You can label it maybe as a "bad flu season" if it makes you feel better about yourself and your ego. In a bad flu year on average around 30,000 people in the UK die from flu and pneumonia, with a loss of around 250,000 life years. This is a sixth of the life years lost to COVID-19.
Flu = bad, Covid = worse. Both should be taken seriously, instead of used as some sort of hobby-horse grift to get attention.
On Fri 20 Oct at 10:35am Tom Pain wrote:
Oh dear, I'll stick to the subject, thanks for the diagnosis. Run along and get your booster.
On Fri 20 Oct at 11:43am Nevillman wrote:
Good to see the two of you agreeing about something ie that it is pointless voting although for different reasons. Green because of his dislike of starmer for taking the labour party back from the hard left and Tom because it makes him feel less bad about his past voting.
As for Ms Caulfield, I received a very glossy sheet from her boasting about how great our health service is in this area so we can assume she feels no responsibility for the state of the health service or presumably the excess deaths you assume are caused by it.
On Fri 20 Oct at 12:40pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I see you still have done no research in Kier Starmer since we last spoke. He seemed quite keen on Israel being free to defend itself through collective punishment and the siege of Gaza. I get this bending of the knee to Israels far right ultra nationalist government is expected of the establishment, so Sunak and Starmer are just doing what they are told. I guess ethnic cleansing should be expected from a country well adept to it like Britain has been over the centuries.
I'm not voting Labour not because they are not "hard left" anymore. I'm not voting for them because they are hard right now. The difference between Sunak and Starmer is paper thin. Just choose which suit you prefer. I'll pick neither thanks.
On Fri 20 Oct at 1:49pm Nevillman wrote:
If you think that starmers position on the issue of Israel and Palestine, an issue that has gone on unresolved for my entire lifetime, can be reduced to that then I think it might be you who needs to do more research green.
At least it provides you with a worthy excuse to "back your conscience"and not support labour rather than the real reason that your bunch lost. When I read your last paragraph I wasn't sure if I was reading you or Tom.
On Fri 20 Oct at 2:11pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I reduce it to that because it shows yet again how spineless he is as a politician, and how he is so scared of certain groups of being labelled as anti semitic. Sums Starmer up, totally devoid of any principles. Just wanting to get into power and bow to the same lobbying groups as Sunak and so afraid to have the opposition accuse him of being like Corbyn and the confected rubbish against him. It's so transparent, you need to be extremely ignorant to not see it. No disrespect, I get its a passing interest for you at best, but as I said time and time again, do your due diligence, if you're going to argue and die on the Starmer Hill.
I'd rather lose and be on the right side of history and call truth to power, than be in power just for the sake of ego and continuing establishment policies at the behest of minority elites. If you think the siege on gaza is ok or can only be solved by pandering to far right zionists, then let's see how that continues to work out....the answer is the same as the previous 75 years. More and more ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
On Fri 20 Oct at 4:05pm Nevillman wrote:
Hopefully starmer is more successful at getting elected than Corbyn and milliband and he does need to be careful. I'm afraid that both of those and their supporters showed their ignorance of what was necessary to get elected. What you appear to regard as principled stands looks very much like being a good loser. Despite both of them obviously being losers before the election I did support them and I regard that as a principled stand on my part which you do not appear capable of.
I don't expect to support everything starmer says and does but trust that he will not let me down too much. "No disrespect" but you appear to have already made your mind up about him and his possible success at achieving anything that might improve the lot of most people in the country.
We shall have to see. Hopefully my vote to help him get into power will achieve more for social justice than your vote for the greens.
On Fri 20 Oct at 4:38pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Happy to be a good loser who is right where it really matters, rather than being complicit in sending this country further downhill and continuing failed policy and failed policy. Again, there is no harm in being in opposition, or being a backbench MP. Caroline Lucas is just one MP, yet i seem to hear her voice more in the Commons than most other MPs, including those on the frontbenches in government or in opposition. Those voices can impact debate, so yea, i'd rather have individuals like Corbyn and Lucas being principled and holding those to account in power.
Starmer didn't really have to do an awful lot to get my vote. If he simply just stood and advocated the things he pledged and won his leadership election on, then I don't see any reason not to vote for him. It was only in 2020, yet he's somehow gone massively to the right, and thrown left-wingers under the bus as some sort of sacrifice to get into office. Which is terrible in itself, but what makes it worse, is that it was wholly unnecessary given the tories turmoil, and maybe it will backfire. Nobody likes a hypocrite or a liar, or someone that stabs others in the back - eventually he'll get caught out. Whether its while he is just leader and going up against a weak Sunak, or as Prime Minister - it will catch up with him, and sadly it will once again cast a dark shadow on the Labour Party. Flip-flopping is hardly a promising sign of a stable leader.
As for Jeremy Corbyn and Miliband getting your "principled stand" votes before, did you actually profoundly disagree with any of their specific policies? I'm taking a principled stand against Starmer's "Labour" because i disagree profoundly with many of his policy u-turns and treatment of his left-wing base and colleagues. Whats the point of voting Labour into government if they are not offering anything different to the current government? Just for a change of scenery and colour? If you disagreed so much with Corbyn and Miliband, you shouldn't have voted for them.....but i don't think you did disagree much with them. My reservations and concerns about Starmer have foundation.
On Fri 20 Oct at 7:56pm Nevillman wrote:
Your first paragraph bought tears to my eyes. After I'd stopped laughing I just thought it was spoken like a real loser. Really green??????? Let's see what you think about that after Labour lose another election. Hopefully they won't but I'm afraid what you said does show a lack of understanding of politics that I don't believe you really think.
You might be right about starmer's beliefs, principles, stability, character and eventual policies. I don't know but we'll hopefully find out. If he is good as prime minister then great and I can expect sensible decisions broadly in line with what I want on the whole. If he is a lemon then with any luck some other labour politician will come along and be better. He can't be worse than the current lot who deserve to be utterly humiliated and destroyed as a political force. Attacking starmer now serves no purpose politically.
As for milliband and Corbyn, the specific policies of both of them that I don't like are any that they couldn't properly communicate and lost them votes with the majority but it was more of a character thing I'm afraid. People just couldn't see them as prime ministers.
I think people can see starmer as a prime minister and at least prefer him to sunak for the obvious reasons. Maybe the labour party could have been bolder and got Corbyn back but he would have lost again.
On Fri 20 Oct at 9:10pm Tom Pain wrote:
Well done Tweedle Twins; proving that parliament merely reflects the lack of concern for their constituents that the Twins themselves evince with their pompous blather. As expected the turnout was minimal although the public gallery must have been stacked by the noise they made. The right side of history was well on show today and left you two and the House in it's decaying, irrelevant dustbin.
On Fri 20 Oct at 9:50pm Nevillman wrote:
If you are saying that the house of commons is irrelevant you are forgetting that it enables the government to govern and decide on things like health spending and priorities.
On Fri 20 Oct at 9:57pm Green Sleeves wrote:
You seem so irritated/threatened by me "attacking" Starmer. Its odd, as you appear to know so little about him (even when I've put it on a plate for you in digestible chunks), yet weirdly defensive about him. I'm not attacking him, I'm just calling him out for flip-flopping and being a liar, with facts. These are far bigger character flaws and leadership red-flags than their presentation skills....but then again I'm not the one who is still cheerleading for Tony Blair and New Labour.
Relax and stop being so insecure. Labour will win the next GE at a canter, and with a low turnout, with just fewer people wanting to vote tories as they can't really justify another term, similar to how New Labour couldn't by 2010 after a decade of fueling islamophobia and irresponsible tory-esque short-term capitalism which contributed to the financial crisis. That is what we're basically being promised, the "good old days" of the 2000s. Led by someone now equally as untrustworthy. Forgive me if i don't feel overly inspired by that and will be happy to just sit out till someone decent comes along again. Starmer lost my vote, he doesn't need it, but you can't criticise me for not voting for him when I've given you plenty of perfectly valid reasons why I shouldn't.
On Sat 21 Oct at 10:54am Nevillman wrote:
I'm at a loss to know what makes you think I am "irritated/threatened" by you attacking starmer. "Flip flopping" seems to be a derogatory way to say that someone changes their mind and I have no problem with politicians doing that and I can't recall anywhere you have called him a liar.
I'm afraid I've had other people almost as clever and perceptive as you confidently tell me that labour were about to win only to see them fall at the last before. Your ignorance of the labour government from 1997 to 2010 and attempt to reduce it to sound bites is once again demonstrated but I understand as you were a child at the time and all you know about Blair is that he is " toxic".
Your misunderstanding of the reality of politics comes over once again and your bitterness towards starmer for deposing Corbyn is apparent. Good luck with finding the next loser to support. It sounds like you will be much happier when you have. Good luck with a lifetime in opposition.
On Sat 21 Oct at 11:15am Green Sleeves wrote:
I was an adult throughout the Blair years. I remember exactly the sentiment towards him and New Labour after spending tens of billions on wiping out the middle East and light touch regulation on the banking industry from Thatchers economics. The main difference is that even Thatcher built more housing than Blair did.
So yeah, toxic is quite a fair term for a war criminal and morally bankrupt crook like Blair. Happy to spend a lifetime in opposition to that kind of politics. Ultimately the country gets what it votes for and I'm happy to warn and say "told you so". Probably why you sound so irritated and tetchy! Getting mugged off by snake oil politicians.
On Sat 21 Oct at 1:26pm Nevillman wrote:
You may still disapprove of it but invading Iraq to remove a murdering tyrant doesn't count as wiping out the middle East in my book. The banks are private companies that made their own stupid decisions. Exactly what regulations could have been imposed to prevent them from buying the debts from America I don't know. It is easy to be wise afterwards. No-one using banks in this country lost out that I know of. My main criticism is toward brown that he didn't allow them to go bust so that the shareholders paid for the bank's stupidity rather than the taxpayers.
Your statistics on housebuilding ignores housing built by housing associations and the issue of the responsibility of the government to provide housing for people. Having lived through Thatcher and Blair I can assure you there were many differences between them.
You will spend a lifetime in opposition. You will even be in opposition when labour wins. That should suit you as it is much easier to say "told you so" than come up with policies that will get you elected. I've spent enough time supporting the party in opposition in my lifetime thank you.
Apologies if I sound irritated and tetchy but I can assure you I am feeling neither.
On Sat 21 Oct at 2:06pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Not sure why my response isn't posted, but i'll try later, i copied and pasted it, as i know what a swine this forum is.
On Sat 21 Oct at 2:09pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ok i must have said something the filter didn't like, so i'll just post a link instead as to why you should not be so fond of New Labour and Blair, and maybe you can think, instead of just using rose-tinted specs.....
Watch the video »
On Sat 21 Oct at 5:30pm Nevillman wrote:
Did you get this link from Tom? So many points made, some accurate, many not. I'm not going to respond to all of them. What do you think the main points are?
On Sat 21 Oct at 6:11pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Ah come on, this is a credible progressive independent media outlet, not some conspiracy theory channel like what TP would promote.
I think broadly speaking, Blairs tenure was a disaster, and Aaron Bastani articulated many points beyond just Iraq and foreign policy (which really should be sufficient on its own given the catastrophic consequences, but i get you want more examples of failures). He provided reasonable balance as they were able to increase public spending, but they weren't able to fully cost it after their economic gambling and mismanagement. I don't think Bastani even mentioned the old Tory attack lines about Gordon Brown selling off the gold at a low price - i have heard Tom trot out that one before. While i get the point that the gold has massively increased in value since those gold reserves were sold, if we hadn't sold them, then we wouldn't have had that additional billions at the time invested into the projects and public services Labour brought in. Its not like you can earn monthly interest on sitting on gold either. The problem is, as the clip mentioned, Blair had little interest in raising taxes on the rich, so the money came from this instead as well as the benefits of a growing economy (which they do partly credit Blair for).
On Sat 21 Oct at 10:58pm Tom Pain wrote:
Just keep waffling girls, up school, up school, right up school, nanny's watching and who knows where this could go....
On Sun 22 Oct at 8:56am Nevillman wrote:
"Credible progressive independent media outlet". Says who? It's people with views similar to yours green who have decided to make a hatchet job video on Blair. It has no more credibility than the videos and articles that Tom uses. At least he just doesn't post a link to a video as if he's making a point.
You incorrectly accused me of being irritated the other day. Today I am irritated that you think you can just post a video making lots of points of varying accuracy and that's it. Point proven.
On Sun 22 Oct at 10:19am Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL what a crybaby. I posted the link yesterday, because my original much longer post got filtered (you can even see i tried to post it before). So i decided to share the link of an educated, qualified, articulate and yes, CREDIBLE, journalist for the case against Tony Blair and New Labour. It wasn't a "hatchet-job", as he brought with him the receipts. I appreciate its not the content you hoped to hear about Blair, but you show me a more compelling case in FAVOUR of Tony Blair. I would imagine you would be hard-pressed to find many speak so glowingly of his legacy, because its become pretty hard to defend at this point. Unless you suffer from selective amnesia.
I guess it irritated you more, because unlike Toms absurd links and sources, which are usually batty or cringe, there was more than a kernel of truth to it all. Bastani and Novara Media aren't some conspiracy outlet, and they provided a reasoned response to Blairs tenure. Sure, there were some bits that were obviously added for comical effect, like Blair taking a selfie, with the music of D:REAMS "Thinks Can Only Get Better", with carpet bombing going on behind him (!!), but the points raised are hard to argue against. I guess thats what probably made you so irritable this morning.....the fact is, that Aaron Bastani said it far better than I could, so you should be grateful you got to see the succinct 8 minute clip from him, rather than 3 long-winded paragraphs of me calling Blair a war criminal (which i thought you had tired of by then anyway).
On Mon 23 Oct at 2:13pm Nevillman wrote:
Being irritated doesn't actually make me cry but I recognise that name calling is a regular tactic for people with no further points to make. I can only repeat that I was irritated that you thought that you could just post a link to a video as your argument. Unless you come up with something new I don't think I've got anything further to add on this and I do try not to just repeat myself.
I accept your point that you don't like Blair or starmer and while there is always a danger that an internet forum pushes people to defend a more extreme argument that they actually hold (part of the fun), I disagree on Blair and am withholding judgement on starmer. I have acknowledged that Blair made mistakes and accept that you regard it as a more fundamental character flaw and think he was a complete disaster.
In my opinion your view on starmer comes from your loyalty to Corbyn. I doubt you will ever change your opinion of him.
I'm sorry Tom. Were you saying something?
On Mon 23 Oct at 3:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Name calling? You keep attempting to insult or smear/undermine me so i think all is fair in love and war. Starmers treatment of Corbyn just scratches the surface of his failings. We have gone through his u-turns in great detail before and his recent pandering to Israel and Tony Blair. I'm shocked the informative short video clip made you so irritated, I've always detailed my points and I rarely rely on video links but this one seemed to disproportionately irritate you. I suspect if it was less convincing, you ire would be not quite as apparent and you wouldn't keep mentioning it.
Glad you seem slightly more lukewarm over Blair. Perhaps some of it is finally going in.....as for Starmer, you can give him the benefit of the doubt as is your right, but don't say you weren't warned. As I said, he seems to be struggling to keep up with what position he takes these days. It's one of the problems if you keep "changing your mind" to please varying demographics to score cheap political points.
On Wed 25 Oct at 1:00pm Nevillman wrote:
That was fun.
It's interesting to see how reasonable debate can turn to unreasonable debate so easily. Anyway, I think we've both got it all off our chest and I can agree to disagree and respect your viewpoint. It becomes hard to make further points without repeating myself except with more personal abuse.
By all means come back green if you have new arguments (of feel the need to personally abuse me). Until the next time....
On Wed 25 Oct at 2:20pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Aaron Bastani pretty much won the argument on this. Credit to Novara Media and Bastani for ending this discussion once and for all. There is little defence for Tony Blair, so you walking away from that debate is wise and saving face, and everyones time who might be bothered to read this thread. I never know whether to pity or roll my eyes at Tony Blair apologists. As for Starmer, its curious to note that i've never heard any counter-arguments for Starmer from you....it tended to be typical weak ambivalence or "well its ok to change your mind, and i will give him the benefit of the doubt".
Good heavens, even "Sleepy Joe Biden" is more progressive than Kier Starmer at the moment. He actually joined a picket line recently and stood up for the workers and unions. Kier Starmer of the LABOUR Party would rather be seen anywhere else than standing shoulder to shoulder with workers and unions. That is ultimately the kind of guy he has become, unfortunately. Plus he looks like Barney Rubble!
On Wed 25 Oct at 4:55pm Nevillman wrote:
As I suspected, you have nothing further to add to your argument except some patronising abuse aimed at anyone who doesn't accept your viewpoint. Even Tom would never just say that all his arguments are included in a video and he only feels pity for anyone who can't accept everything it says. I have attempted to deal with the main arguments you have raised in criticism of Blair ie Iraq and the credit crunch, accepting some validity in some of them but rather than deal with my points you post a video that ignores them as if that is conclusive proof. You completely ignore the huge improvements in all the public services that Blair oversaw.
As someone who is committed to losing every election for the rest of his lifetime I understand why you are so desperate to pretend that you have won this debate rather than accept the honourable face saving escape I offered you as you did on the recent Corbyn thread.
I am hoping that the main defence I have offered on starmer is that he can actually win an election unlike the duds you support. I will be in a better position to judge him after he has been in office for a while.
If there is anyone following our debate I can only apologise as I am now just repeating myself as no new points were raised for me to deal with. I have no idea if starmer has ever stood on a picket line or tried to sell socialist worker at a rally. I don't really regard them as criteria for judging if someone is likely to be a good prime minister in delivering the social justice I seek. As you know I am not as beholden to the unquestioning belief in the righteousness of the unions as you are for one thing.
I realise the Barney rubble line at the end is a desperate attempt at a wind up. Hilarious green.
On Wed 25 Oct at 5:40pm Green Sleeves wrote:
LOL ok mardy, but that same clip you bashed also acknowledged New Labours public spending increases, but it was never ultimately costed, as Brown and Blair seemed to think their luck would never run out. The £40bn wasted on totally avoidable catastrophic wars probably didn't help either. All your points you have ever made have all been debunked by me and the clip time and time again.
Your views on Unions is very mainstream Thatcher. Well done. Lets cr*p on those trying to help workers get a better deal. Good lord, if we only had political wimps like you throughout history, we'd still all be working at weekends! Barney Rubble was being kind to starmer. I hope he fulfils all your dreams though, even if you can't name a single policy of his. That is because you're a pseud. Thanks for offering me a way out of this debate, its so kind of you, but i kinda enjoy rinsing you like yesterdays laundry.
On Wed 25 Oct at 6:40pm Nevillman wrote:
Moi? A pseud. Au contraire my dear greenie as my good friend Moliere once told me. I thought the Barney rubble line was a good one but this one certainly takes the chocolate hobnob. I am LOLLING very hard.
Actually brown's golden rule did cost public spending and set the limit at public expenditure at 40% of GDP. Brown unfortunately broke his rule bailing out the banks and it has never got anywhere near it again. It was a bit arbitrary but tax receipts exceeded public expenditure for much of Blair's reign as I'm sure I shouldn't need to explain to someone with the grasp of economics and the Blair years you have.
If generally union action was trying to improve the lot of the lowest paid workers I would agree with it but most of the time it is trying to improve the lot of the most powerful workers who already earn more than the lowest paid who lack the power to do anything about it. The train drivers don't take action to help the train cleaners.
Please keep rinsing.
On Wed 25 Oct at 7:08pm Green Sleeves wrote:
I think that's a pretty generalised and misinformed/warped view of strikes and industrial action but i cant say im shocked by that take, given the coverage of unions over the years. Rail staff including cleaners have gone on strike recently anyway so seems a daft point.
As for Blairs thatcherite tax and spend policies. Yes, the first few years they had a growing economy, and he blew much of it on unwise or illegal military interventions and were one of the more exposed economies during the financial crash due to neoliberal economics. He seemed so confident at every step.....that's all it takes, being a confidence trickster and charlatan. Boris Johnson and David Cameron were the same.
On Thu 26 Oct at 8:36am Nevillman wrote:
That is interesting about the coverage on unions in recent years but as I don't read papers it has had no influence on my view. If the train cleaners were to get a bit raise them it would not hugely surprise me if the train drivers redoubled their efforts to maintain their differentials. That is what the train drivers Union is paid by it's members to do.
Blair maintained military spending at between 2 and 2.5% of GDP throughout his tenure. His action in Kosovo is widely regarded as having saved many lives. Arguably it's success went to his head and encouraged him in Iraq but that is a different matter we have discussed already.
You seem to think that the government should have done something to restrict the financial services industry from buying the cheap US debt but what? Allowing private banks to operate does not constitute a neo liberal economy. He encouraged an industry that brought us wealth. We were no more exposed than other industrial countries.
Accusing prime ministers of incompetence is one thing but only one of the three you mention could accurately be called a confidence trickster and charlatan. As for the confidence bit then even Corbyn appeared confident. An important trait for any leader I would think.