Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Politics


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, 47er said:

And how many were sold under Thatcher's legislation?.That's where if started.

How many are now rented privately at "market rates"?

Yes, a lot! I think Thatcher was right to allow people to buy their council houses though. Is renting from the government for life a satisfying way to live? Probably not I would say.

Not sure, do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for a proper response. Much better than the previous sound bites. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

You are a bit!

I stopped supporting the government 2 years ago when they introduced lockdown restrictions that I strongly disagreed with. I was just pointing out some things they have done well as opposed to ONLY things they haven’t.

Interesting. Unsurprisingly I'd take the opposite view re restrictions first and possibly second time round. Having seen the effects of Covid on friends and family pre vaccine and witnessed the impact on health care and education locking down was an absolute must. 

As for pointing out the positives as I said before I don't think that negates the wrong doing in the situation. That's not how life works. And besides if it were an overall evaluation of the government then you missed a whole host of other negatives off in your "evaluation". Seems more of a defense of the indefensible than any kind of summary. 

 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

The lockdown restrictions are the main one that you’ve missed. In the next couple of years, when it becomes apparent all the damage it has caused, it could well ruin the conservatives at the next election. Particularly, if it turns out more people died as a consequence of lockdown than died of covid.

The effects of lockdown were huge. Think it would have been worse had they not. However, had they actually invested in schools, NHS etc. then we might be in a better place to recover from lockdown. On this score I'm more annoyed at how they have prevented the recovery than the lockdown. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

I agree with the license fee freeze but I suspect that was just a policy thrown out to distract from the goings on at No 10. The BBC is important, I fully support it and I don’t believe there’s a long term aim to dismantle it. However, locking up poor people who are unable to pay the license fee is fundamentally wrong. So a debate needs to be had on how best to fund it moving forward.

Surely your first sentence here shows how it's a huge problem? A distraction policy isn't looking to the interests of the public it's a political appeasement. That in and of itself should set alarm bells ringing that policy is decided this way. 

No plan to dismantle it? You only need to look at how the government has pressured the BBC (and their less than explicit response to government misdsemenours) to see they are feeling the pressure. And besides the license fee freeze significantly goes a good way to doing this. 

Agree on a debate on funding. Shame that's not had before said cuts. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

The police and crime bill is very concerning. I don’t think they should be rushing through legislation like this and it certainly requires more scrutiny and tweaks. I can understand the need to give the police more power to stop Insulate Britain from causing chaos to working people trying go about their daily lives, but this isn’t it. I’m glad the Lords rejected the government amendments. Hopefully our parliament process will do it’s job and force the government to adjust and improve the bill.

I think this bill clearly shows us moving towards what I was "hysterical" (actually cautiously wary) about. That you recognise the danger of this despite giving the government a free pass most of the time shows how dangerous it is. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

Yes, it’s all over the news but it seems quite over the top to me. I don’t think the general public are as concerned as you are. If anything I’m starting to find it boring. I guess if the civil servants broke the law, they’ll be sacked. If it shows ministers were involved or the PM they’ll have to resign.

Really? I've seen/heard lots of disgust. Lots of mainstream media jibes at it too - I'm a celeb and sky football for two off the top of my head. All stories do become wearisome, I'd agree on that but to say people aren't or weren't bothered I think is a lie. That even hugely pro Tory papers ran with it also shows its a key issue. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

I’m not attacking anything. I am concerned about wokesim because it’s an authoritarian ideology, that is particularly inherent in those on the left, which is why I brought it up. Cancel culture is another that seems inherent in those on the left. If Labour got in power, I’d be very concerned these would get completely out of hand.

Don't think under Starmer it would. Think this is scare mongering a bit, albeit something to keep an eye on. 

23 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

We don’t know who broke the rules or even if they did until Sue Gray’s report is published. I’m not saying they haven’t made mistakes, nor am I ignoring them but I would point out that we’ve not been living in normal times. Everything that’s happened over the last 2 years has been far from normal. As we come out of the pandemic, the next couple of years will be very interesting, particularly how the government handles the rising energy crisis.

Absolute horse manure. It's clear as day from photos, emails, admissions of attendance that Boris and co have done so. 

Take Boris's attendance at the party. Not mentioned to him by one of his key aids or anyone else? He didn't see the email or recognise it when he was there? Didn't know it was against the rules that he made? Work events with booze and his wife there? It's clear and utter bullshit without an ounce of plausibility. You have to suspend all critical reasoning to believe this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife who is a GP has just filled in a form to confirm her vaccination status to avoid being sacked by the government. Unvaccinated NHS staff have 12 days to get jabbed regardless if they have had covid previously. If the government continues to pursue this policy, we'll lose about 80'000 NHS staff over night. Am I the only one who thinks this is utterly moronic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, ChrisyG said:

Nope, that's what is actually happening.

I think they had to appoint a civil servant who was neutral otherwise there would have been uproar. She was the one who investigated plebgate in 2012 that led to Damien Green's resignation. I'm pretty sure she isn't a government stooge.

Either he's a bumbling inept idiot or a cunning vengeful mastermind. Which is it?

 

He could have appointed someone independant who had the authority to reach conclusions, but he didn’t. He appointed someone who worked for him and didn’t give her the right to come to conclusions. He reserved the right to make any conclusions for himself.

That is not an independant inquiry. It’s loaded in his favour.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrisyG said:

Nope, that's what is actually happening.

I think they had to appoint a civil servant who was neutral otherwise there would have been uproar. She was the one who investigated plebgate in 2012 that led to Damien Green's resignation. I'm pretty sure she isn't a government stooge.

Either he's a bumbling inept idiot or a cunning vengeful mastermind. Which is it?

 

Its not so much about her but the rules that will restrain her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ChrisyG said:

My wife who is a GP has just filled in a form to confirm her vaccination status to avoid being sacked by the government. Unvaccinated NHS staff have 12 days to get jabbed regardless if they have had covid previously. If the government continues to pursue this policy, we'll lose about 80'000 NHS staff over night. Am I the only one who thinks this is utterly moronic?

If I get sick and have to go to hospital for whatever reason, I reserve the right to be treated only by staff who have been fully vaccinated. You want your rights, I want mine. Fair enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and let’s not forget that the met police have stepped back from investigating the Downing Street parties due to an agreement with the cabinet office. They have agreed to allow Sue Gray to investigate instead of them. Why? The met are refusing to look at evidence that comes forward About alleged parties when they don’t do that in any other situations. They refuse to say why. Also police were present inside Downing Street during these parties.

So, to suggest everything is above board here is just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ChrisyG said:

Yes, a lot! I think Thatcher was right to allow people to buy their council houses though. Is renting from the government for life a satisfying way to live? Probably not I would say.

Not sure, do you know?

Many people would die for that sort of security and value. Not satisfying for you maybe but many people,  were happy with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, den said:

He could have appointed someone independant who had the authority to reach conclusions, but he didn’t. He appointed someone who worked for him and didn’t give her the right to come to conclusions. He reserved the right to make any conclusions for himself.

That is not an independant inquiry. It’s loaded in his favour.
 

 

I take your point Den but whoever they appointed wouldn't have been seen as independent by one side or the other. I suppose it is in his favour but at the same time Sue Gray is a pretty formidable civil servant. I don't think it's as cut and dried as some make out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom

Social housing done properly is the ideal for many. If social housing were introduced at all 'standards' of living, I think it would greatly appeal.

I'd much rather pay my mortgage into tax than into a bank, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, den said:

They have agreed to allow Sue Gray to investigate instead of them. Why? The met are refusing to look at evidence that comes forward About alleged parties when they don’t do that in any other situations

If the police ever come to my door accusing me of something I assume I can just say my wife is looking into it and I'll be back in touch and then shut the door

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrisyG said:

My wife who is a GP has just filled in a form to confirm her vaccination status to avoid being sacked by the government. Unvaccinated NHS staff have 12 days to get jabbed regardless if they have had covid previously. If the government continues to pursue this policy, we'll lose about 80'000 NHS staff over night. Am I the only one who thinks this is utterly moronic?

Utter madness and hopefully just an empty threat 

 

33 minutes ago, 47er said:

If i get sick and have to go to hospital for whatever reason, I reserve the right to be treated only by staff who have been fully vaccinated. You want your rights, I want mine. Fair enough?

Even though the vaccination doesnt prevent transmission.... however no skin off my nose if you want to turn down  treatment. If I get ill I want to go to a well staffed hospital. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s also looking like the evidence given to the inquiry won’t be published in full. Imagine Johnson clearing himself without all the evidence being published!

 

The terms of reference of the investigation make it clear that “findings” will be made public. However, the Guardian understands that does not include accompanying evidence such as emails, text messages or transcripts of interviews, or precise details about what happened at any of the alleged gatherings.

This may mean an email allegedly sent by a senior official warning Johnson’s principal private secretary, Martin Reynolds, not to have drinks in the No 10 garden on 20 May 2020 may never be made public.

The email is crucial, as Johnson insists he was not warned that the “bring your own booze” event might be against the rules, and that he was unaware it was a party when he spent about 25 minutes there speaking to staff, believed to number 30 to 40.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/21/pm-facing-calls-to-ensure-all-evidence-is-published-in-no-10-parties-inquiry?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 47er said:

If I get sick and have to go to hospital for whatever reason, I reserve the right to be treated only by staff who have been fully vaccinated. You want your rights, I want mine. Fair enough?

Er.. yes but seems a but weird to only want to risk catching covid from someone who is vaccinated as oppose to someone who isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RoverDom said:

Utter madness and hopefully just an empty threat 

 

Even though the vaccination doesnt prevent transmission.... however no skin off my nose if you want to turn down  treatment. If I get ill I want to go to a well staffed hospital. 

Yes, hopefully it is an empty threat and they'll pause it. Apparently, the governement have done no assesment of how many GP's would be sacked. It could be 10'000 for all they know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Many people would die for that sort of security and value. Not satisfying for you maybe but many people,  were happy with it

Maybe but many people also have aspirations, want to achieve, improve their lives and own their own home. I had a quick google and in 1982 a year after the right to buy policy was introduced there were 174,697 purchases. Take up was clearly high.

I must confess though, I was only about 7 at the time and my knowledge on the pros and cons isn't that great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

Yes, a lot! I think Thatcher was right to allow people to buy their council houses though. Is renting from the government for life a satisfying way to live? Probably not I would say.

Not sure, do you know?

It costs the taxpayer around £2 billion a year in excess housing benefit.

PS - there are plenty of people who have lived very happily in social rented housing for many years. 

Edited by oldjamfan1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Backroom

Lot of moaning going on about this report that hasn't even come out yet. 

Think you should be happier, this is probably the beginning of the end. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Probably won't be long till you're toasting Boris's P45.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

Er.. yes but seems a but weird to only want to risk catching covid from someone who is vaccinated as oppose to someone who isn't.

I suspect you know this, but it's about minimising the risk of catching covid...and minimising the risk of spreading it to hospital staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dreyski said:

And then there can’t be another challenge for 12 months. 

That's a bit of a misnomer, as the rule is a 1922 Committee one and they can easily change it. Also, should Johnson survive a vote of no confidence in the near future the Conservatives will produce some men in grey suits if they need to later this year anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silas said:

Lot of moaning going on about this report that hasn't even come out yet. 

Think you should be happier, this is probably the beginning of the end. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Probably won't be long till you're toasting Boris's P45.

Not moaning, just pointing out some facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, only2garners said:

That's a bit of a misnomer, as the rule is a 1922 Committee one and they can easily change it. Also, should Johnson survive a vote of no confidence in the near future the Conservatives will produce some men in grey suits if they need to later this year anyway.

Fair enough, I just remember the point being made around the time of May's VoC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

Maybe but many people also have aspirations, want to achieve, improve their lives and own their own home. I had a quick google and in 1982 a year after the right to buy policy was introduced there were 174,697 purchases. Take up was clearly high.

I must confess though, I was only about 7 at the time and my knowledge on the pros and cons isn't that great.

Of course take-up was high! It was free money! Agree with the last bit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChrisyG said:

Er.. yes but seems a but weird to only want to risk catching covid from someone who is vaccinated as oppose to someone who isn't.

You think  the chances are evens on that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.