Jump to content

Recommended Posts

May took on the job & has done precious little since taking office.


More years of incompetence to come.


Prospect for 10 years


Debt - UP

Deficit - UP

Prices - UP

GDP - DOWN

Incomes - DOWN

Profits Tax - DOWN

Unemployment - DOUBTFUL

Brexit - UNCERTAIN

NHS - NOTHING

Care - NOTHING

Disabled - NOTHING


Housing Funding ?1.4 billion

40,000 dwellings = ?37,500 per unit


Housing Infrastructure Fund ?2.3 billion

100,000 dwellings = ?23,000 per unit


Much too little, barely scratching the surface


London will be faced with a 559,000 deficit of homes by 2021 [LSE]

London needs 80,000 dwellings per year to catch up with unmet need & growth

Less than 20,000 are currently being built.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Without the war, IMO Blair would have been a

> perfectly reasonable PM... who has been better in

> the past 40 or so years?


I agree. His first term was very effective, centre-ground politics.


Considering the current highly unappealing - appalling, even - choices on offer (and I include the dreary Tim Farron in that), I'd consider voting for Blair.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Without our faults we are all perfect.

>

>

> Without the war, WMD..... not really minor flaws,

> are they.



No, but equally they have absolutely nothing to do with what he's been saying recently. His previous mistakes don't mean that everything he says is wrong.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Without the war, IMO Blair would have been a

> perfectly reasonable PM... who has been better in

> the past 40 or so years?


We actually forget how popular he was at the beginning of

the war - remember those shirt sleeves pulled up meetings

with troops.


But then we found out how dodgy his dossier was ...

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> We actually forget how popular he was at the

> beginning of

> the war - remember those shirt sleeves pulled up

> meetings

> with troops.

>

> But then we found out how dodgy his dossier was

> ...


There were nearly two million of us who marched against him before the war started, the largest ever demonstration in the UK - not that popular!

Excuse me, is there some kind of re-branding of The Bliar going on here? Have I missed something? I did vote for him in '97 and I agree he was pretty good up until he became Bush's simpering little whore. He's a war criminal. Plain and simple. Let's not forget that.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > We actually forget how popular he was at the

> > beginning of

> > the war - remember those shirt sleeves pulled

> up

> > meetings

> > with troops.

> >

> > But then we found out how dodgy his dossier was

> > ...

>

> There were nearly two million of us who marched

> against him before the war started, the largest

> ever demonstration in the UK - not that popular!


Fair enough - I think I must have taken him on trust

at the start - because it turned out to be sixth form

stuff.


Edit: and I sort of believed in Liberal Interventionism

at that time - discredited now.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.12229/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+26th+November+2016+from+07%3A00-11%3A00+GMT+%2F+02%3A00-06%3A00+EST+%2F+15%3A00-19%3A00+SGT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

Nothing Blair has done in the past means he isn't capable of commenting on the current political mess we are in.


Harold Shipman killed loads of people. He still could have offered you sound medical advice if he'd wanted to.


All this "because of Iraq, nothing Blair says should be listened to" attitude is doing my head in.

But to use your own analogy, Otta, if Harold Shipman offered me medical advice and gave me a prescription now, knowing he's a serial killer I wouldn't take it! Similarly knowing Blair has proved a liar of psychopathic proportions in the past (I'm not using the words lightly, one of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is the inability to accept any version of reality other than his own as true) then I'm not prepared to take what he says now on trust (even though thus far he hasn't really said anything I disagree with - maybe I'm a psychopath too....)


Actually it's not the Iraq issue which makes me distrust him in the current debate, it's the fact that he has a track record of cosying up to and giving advantages to (and being paid by) large multinational corporations, and I suspect he's far more interested in what Brexit means for them rather than the person in the street.

Rendel,


Examples of corporate cosying?


Im not surprised that he has, however I wouldn't expect this to have been motivated by an intrinsic affinity for corporations, rather that doing so would have been in his view the most efficient method of furthering whatever his particular personal agenda was at that point in time, and so we can't assume he will behave the same way in the future.


Seabag,


I'd guess that having made as much as he has already, money won't be his primary motivation, rather a yearning for greater power, having realised it is that not money that can grisly satisfy him.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of Smoke Control law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all per se, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...