More Tory lies

[Cade]

Trussonomics:

 

Bump interest rates up

Slash wages

 

Boom, cost of living crisis and soaring inflation sorted

 

[Victorian]

Irony is that Thatcher would have laughed herself silly at Truss's Sesame Street economics.  Sunak is by far the more Thatcherite.

 

Hoping all this bullshit is just her saying a menu of things to the target audience of 160,000 to get her feet under the table and that actual actions wont match the bullshit.  Otherwise our economy is a corpse.

[Unknown user]

Winter's going to turn ugly

[Footballfirst]

Which Liz Truss to believe?

 

 

[WorldChampions1902]

43 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Winter's going to turn ugly

The elephant in the room is what happens when the various government subsidies expire? All the money they are throwing at the problem is mostly, “one off’s”.
 

As much as these interventions are welcome, unless the government introduces a permanent solution, it’s what happens in 12 months time that matters.

[Cade]

Shitehawk Thatcher immediately scraps her plans to cut all public sector pay.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What a goon. Another one with zero credibility 

[Mikey1874]

This is a clear sign the Conservative are all over the place. The levelling up agenda was never really serious and certainly not backed by the Cabinet - just a Boris Johnson project. 

 

This sort of proposal has been around for over 30 years. Council workers went on strike in 1989 to defeat it. 

[Victorian]

It's just word soup now.  Meaningless mumbo jumbo to snare a few votes.  No effort or thought being put into the details.  No consideration of the implications of jumping in feet first into the next fiasco of a policy pledge.  

 

You can kinda tell they really,  really want this job,  eh?

[Victorian]

Keep Brexit Safe.

Bash Johnny EU.

Bash the ECHR.

Ignore Nicola and say no.

Cut tax now/sometime.

Deport more migrants.

Let less migrants in.

Deregulate.

Bash Johnny Socialist.

Bash Johnny Union.

Small state.

Eradicate red tape.

Cut civil service jobs.

Cut pay of public sector.

See off this woke nonsense.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

28 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Keep Brexit Safe. 

Bash Johnny EU.

Bash the ECHR.

Ignore Nicola and say no.

Cut tax now/sometime.

Deport more migrants.

Let less migrants in.

Deregulate.

Bash Johnny Socialist.

Bash Johnny Union.

Small state.

Eradicate red tape.

Cut civil service jobs.

Cut pay of public sector.

See off this woke nonsense.

 

Anything, literally any strawman imaginable, to divert from their lack of policy and complete lack of governance. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

55 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Keep Brexit Safe.

Bash Johnny EU.

Bash the ECHR.

Ignore Nicola and say no.

Cut tax now/sometime.

Deport more migrants.

Let less migrants in.

Deregulate.

Bash Johnny Socialist.

Bash Johnny Union.

Small state.

Eradicate red tape.

Cut civil service jobs.

Cut pay of public sector.

See off this woke nonsense.

 

Agree with the last point 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Agree with the last point 

I see this quite a lot.

 

What is woke and how does it impact you?

[JudyJudyJudy]

17 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

I see this quite a lot.

 

What is woke and how does it impact you?

Probably best not to derail the thread and go off topic . 

[The Mighty Thor]

4 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Probably best not to derail the thread and go off topic . 

Aye true.

 

Just genuinely curious as I see it all the time. 

[I P Knightley]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Probably best not to derail the thread and go off topic . 

Has someone hacked James's account?

 

But on Victorian's list, it's just the stuff that the Tory faithful want to hear. She knows that she won't be held to account over stuff she says now once she's in power. The stuff about ignoring Sturgeon got big whoops and hollers at the event yesterday and will secure her some more votes. Some might argue that it also helps the tories by rallying people behind Sturgeon and the SNP, reducing the chance of there being a trend towards Labour in Scotland.

 

[Victorian]

13 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Has someone hacked James's account?

 

But on Victorian's list, it's just the stuff that the Tory faithful want to hear. She knows that she won't be held to account over stuff she says now once she's in power. The stuff about ignoring Sturgeon got big whoops and hollers at the event yesterday and will secure her some more votes. Some might argue that it also helps the tories by rallying people behind Sturgeon and the SNP, reducing the chance of there being a trend towards Labour in Scotland.

 

 

Good point.  The SNP is currently very,  very valuable to the Tories.  But I highly doubt that Truss or her cheerleaders have such sophisticated strategic awareness.

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Good point.  The SNP is currently very,  very valuable to the Tories.  

That's it, if Scotland returned as many Labour MP's as they did 20 odd years ago the tories would be in trouble.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's it, if Scotland returned as many Labour MP's as they did 20 odd years ago the tories would be in trouble.

 

 

Potentially,  very much so.  It's a perverse irony of current politics.

[Boab]

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

That's it, if Scotland returned as many Labour MP's as they did 20 odd years ago the tories would be in trouble.

 

Indeed. The SNP's popularity in the noughties was down, largely, to policies Labour were known for. 

Win/win for the Tories. Divide and conquer and all that jazz.

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Potentially,  very much so.  It's a perverse irony of current politics.

It would be really interesting to see a Scottish Labour Party saying they'd hold an Independence Referendum, what would that do to the SNP vote?

[Victorian]

23 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

It would be really interesting to see a Scottish Labour Party saying they'd hold an Independence Referendum, what would that do to the SNP vote?

 

Depends how wholeheartedly they pledged it.  But if so,  the SNP vote would suffer.  But also,  there's a reasonable chance that Labour would lose a lot of Scottish unionist voters to the Tories.  The matter of independence is a voting pattern distortion on both sides of the argument.

[Jeffros Furios]

Tory *******s  !! 

[Horatio Caine]

If the Tories really believe there is no appetite for another referendum, then why don't they just say - All right, let's have one.  Then, if the result is still a `No` that really does put it to bed for a long time.

But the Tories are actually scared the result would be a `Yes`.

[Victorian]

22 minutes ago, Horatio Caine said:

If the Tories really believe there is no appetite for another referendum, then why don't they just say - All right, let's have one.  Then, if the result is still a `No` that really does put it to bed for a long time.

But the Tories are actually scared the result would be a `Yes`.

 

The routine excuse is to (falsely) say that the requests would keep on coming every two years,  based on the SNP creating new so-called changes of circumstances.  It's complete bullshit.  Brexit was a reasonable claim of a change of circumstances,  therefore a reasonable claim that a renewed referendum should be held.  It's dishonest to declare that further examples would be invented every couple of years.

 

The better way to proceed is to negotiate with the SNP over the terms of a referendum.  Firstly that it must not be held again for 15 years.  Secondly that it requires a 60% to 40% result to pass,  with a mandatory requirement to vote with no vote cast to default to a yes vote (to force out the no voters so that it can't be perverted by a low turnout).

 

Set some difficult terms and have it.  It needs settled firmly.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Victorian

[Shooter McGavin]

Liz Truss makes a u-turn.

 

An absolute imbecile, who’s recklessly being lined up to be our next PM.

 

Can’t believe people are enabling her.

[Boab]

21 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The routine excuse is to (falsely) say that the requests would keep on coming every two years,  based on the SNP creating new so-called changes of circumstances.  It's complete bullshit.  Brexit was a reasonable claim of a change of circumstances,  therefore a reasonable claim that a renewed referendum should be held.  It's dishonest to declare that further examples would be invented every couple of years.

 

The better way to proceed is to negotiate with the SNP over the terms of a referendum.  Firstly that it must not be held again for 15 years.  Secondly that it requires a 60% to 40% result to pass,  with a mandatory requirement to vote with no vote cast to default to a yes vote (to force out the no voters so that it can't be perverted by a low turnout).

 

Set some difficult terms and have it.  It needs settled firmly.

No one would agree to any of those terms.

Can you imagine the stooshie with a 59% to 41% Yes vote ?

Sorry, mate, no chance !

There should be another vote because of the material change of Brexit.

Nothing more.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The routine excuse is to (falsely) say that the requests would keep on coming every two years,  based on the SNP creating new so-called changes of circumstances.  It's complete bullshit.  Brexit was a reasonable claim of a change of circumstances,  therefore a reasonable claim that a renewed referendum should be held.  It's dishonest to declare that further examples would be invented every couple of years.

 

The better way to proceed is to negotiate with the SNP over the terms of a referendum.  Firstly that it must not be held again for 15 years.  Secondly that it requires a 60% to 40% result to pass,  with a mandatory requirement to vote with no vote cast to default to a yes vote (to force out the no voters so that it can't be perverted by a low turnout).

 

Set some difficult terms and have it.  It needs settled firmly.

See this is all very reasonable. Fair parameters, with the exception of voting being mandatory (I don’t believe it should ever be mandatory, and saying any uncast vote would become a yes is v slanted). Hard to see why anyone would oppose this as a pretty sensible proposal 

[Dawnrazor]

29 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The routine excuse is to (falsely) say that the requests would keep on coming every two years,  based on the SNP creating new so-called changes of circumstances.  It's complete bullshit.  Brexit was a reasonable claim of a change of circumstances,  therefore a reasonable claim that a renewed referendum should be held.  It's dishonest to declare that further examples would be invented every couple of years.

 

The better way to proceed is to negotiate with the SNP over the terms of a referendum.  Firstly that it must not be held again for 15 years.  Secondly that it requires a 60% to 40% result to pass,  with a mandatory requirement to vote with no vote cast to default to a yes vote (to force out the no voters so that it can't be perverted by a low turnout).

 

Set some difficult terms and have it.  It needs settled firmly.

Very good points but would the SNP ever agree to the 15 year and 60 / 40 parts?

I'd agree to both and have one next year if that was the agreed criteria. 

[Victorian]

8 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

See this is all very reasonable. Fair parameters, with the exception of voting being mandatory (I don’t believe it should ever be mandatory, and saying any uncast vote would become a yes is v slanted). Hard to see why anyone would oppose this as a pretty sensible proposal 

 

It would be hijacked by the 'no referendum ever' crew.  Ignored.  There would be a campaign for no voters to not vote in order to devalue the credibility of the result.  It definitely needs something along those lines in order to achieve an honest result.

 

@Boab

 

There must be clear daylight in the result.  Maybe 55% then.  Plus an undertaking that a term must pass before another go.  The whole thing needs settled.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Victorian

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Very good points but would the SNP ever agree to the 15 year and 60 / 40 parts?

I'd agree to both and have one next year if that was the agreed criteria. 

 

It might need to.  The SNP has already spoken about the willingness to negotiate terms.

[Nucky Thompson]

2 hours ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Tory *******s  !! 

I always had you down as a Tory as well big fella 

[Boab]

55 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It would be hijacked by the 'no referendum ever' crew.  Ignored.  There would be a campaign for no voters to not vote in order to devalue the credibility of the result.  It definitely needs something along those lines in order to achieve an honest result.

 

@Boab

 

There must be clear daylight in the result.  Maybe 55% then.  Plus an undertaking that a term must pass before another go.  The whole thing needs settled.

Sorry, it would be a protracted bunfight just to agree terms. 
The Nats would be mental to agree to any of that. Especially as none of it was in place for the last one. I get the reasoning behind a certain term passing before another vote but if it was a Yes vote that would be out the window and if it was a No, I don't think there would be an appetite for yet another vote for a good while anyway.
I think we can all agree it needs settled so I hope it goes ahead. 

[Japan Jambo]

3 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

It would be really interesting to see a Scottish Labour Party saying they'd hold an Independence Referendum, what would that do to the SNP vote?

 

Would depend if it was Corbyn Labour or Starmer Labour. Run to the left of the SNP and might give them a run.

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Japan Jambo said:

 

Would depend if it was Corbyn Labour or Starmer Labour. Run to the left of the SNP and might give them a run.

It's a difficult one, say an Angela Rayner led party would definitely provide a left leaning Labour Party and the clear devision between Labour and the Tories that's needed, but would that be too unpalatable for middle britain? 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

3 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

It would be really interesting to see a Scottish Labour Party saying they'd hold an Independence Referendum, what would that do to the SNP vote?

Unfortunately no such thing exists.

It's Labour (Scottish branch office).

 

Everyone has seen through it and that's why they've been supplanted by a Scottush Party with Scottish interests at their core.

 

Having to 'phone the boss' in London to see what you're allowed to say or do just doesn't cut it when you've got a national parliament.

 

Same goes for the other arse cheek of UK politics and their branch office. 

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Boab said:

Sorry, it would be a protracted bunfight just to agree terms. 
The Nats would be mental to agree to any of that. Especially as none of it was in place for the last one. I get the reasoning behind a certain term passing before another vote but if it was a Yes vote that would be out the window and if it was a No, I don't think there would be an appetite for yet another vote for a good while anyway.
I think we can all agree it needs settled so I hope it goes ahead. 

 

The last one has nothing to do with anything.  There's no reason not to develop on what has gone before.  Why should either side agree to a simple 50% plus 1 vote way of deciding a massively important matter? 

 

Afaic,  the Holyrood parliament majority of pro-independence representatives has a case for saying they have a mandate to call a referendum.  But for me it's thin.  There's no clear daylight in the parliamentary figures.  There's no clear polling indicators to demonstrate enough support,  not only for independence but even another chance to have a poll.  In those circumstances it would be unwise to rely on a straight 50% as the clear will of the people.  

[Dawnrazor]

5 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Unfortunately no such thing exists.

It's Labour (Scottish branch office).

 

Everyone has seen through it and that's why they've been supplanted by a Scottush Party with Scottish interests at their core.

 

Having to 'phone the boss' in London to see what you're allowed to say or do just doesn't cut it when you've got a national parliament.

 

Same goes for the other arse cheek of UK politics and their branch office. 

Sorry, I meant a Scottish Labour Party, if a Scottish Labour Party said they have a referendum. 

[Boab]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

The last one has nothing to do with anything.  There's no reason not to develop on what has gone before.  Why should either side agree to a simple 50% plus 1 vote way of deciding a massively important matter? 

 

Afaic,  the Holyrood parliament majority of pro-independence representatives has a case for saying they have a mandate to call a referendum.  But for me it's thin.  There's no clear daylight in the parliamentary figures.  There's no clear polling indicators to demonstrate enough support,  not only for independence but even another chance to have a poll.  In those circumstances it would be unwise to rely on a straight 50% as the clear will of the people.  

I take your point. As you said earlier maybe 55. I think 60 would be hard to get the Nats to agree. 
On a general point of it actually taking place, I hope it does. Do even Nat supporters want their party to go into a GE with one policy ?
It's looking like it will happen. All that will do is cause more division, more animosity. A bit of a farce actually.

[The Mighty Thor]

9 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Sorry, I meant a Scottish Labour Party, if a Scottish Labour Party said they have a referendum. 

No I get that, but it'll never happen as London runs the show. Sarwar is the latest sock puppet leader in a long line of no marks doing Labour HQs bidding. 

Scottish Labour is utterly pointless, hence their abysmal electoral showings. 

[Victorian]

Just now, Boab said:

I take your point. As you said earlier maybe 55. I think 60 would be hard to get the Nats to agree. 
On a general point of it actually taking place, I hope it does. Do even Nat supporters want their party to go into a GE with one policy ?
It's looking like it will happen. All that will do is cause more division, more animosity. A bit of a farce actually.

 

The single issue GE campaign ploy is a threat to the Tories that they are prepared to give up a part of their Westminster block as a result of forcing people to vote on a tactical basis that may result in Labour winning enough seats to get closer to a majority or enough to become largest party in a hung parliament.  The SNP block is like Christmas Day every day to the Tories.  It's locking out Labour from a chance to threaten the Tories,  especially if they win back some of the red wall seats and the LDs make gains in the west country and some other areas.  

 

There's more to come from the SNP in that regard.  They could do a few things that could terrify the Tories about Scottish seats.  The nuclear option is to threaten to simply not contest seats that would be taken by Labour.

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

No I get that, but it'll never happen as London runs the show. Sarwar is the latest sock puppet leader in a long line of no marks doing Labour HQs bidding. 

Scottish Labour is utterly pointless, hence their abysmal electoral showings. 

Aye, I never really thought that one through, well I did but was thinking that there was more autonomy than there is👍

[Boab]

3 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

No I get that, but it'll never happen as London runs the show. Sarwar is the latest sock puppet leader in a long line of no marks doing Labour HQs bidding. 

Scottish Labour is utterly pointless, hence their abysmal electoral showings. 

Disagree. If ever we needed a strong alternative to the rampant neo-liberalism on show, not just in the UK, it's now. 

It it means staying in the union to achieve it, it would be a price worth paying.

Looks like it's too late though.

 

[manaliveits105]

Hopefully the new Prime Minister  will not meet the head of the Scottish Administration in Bute Hoose but tell her to go to Downlng Street if she wants to meet with Goverment about anything 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

It might need to.  The SNP has already spoken about the willingness to negotiate terms.

 

I don't see why they would TBH.

If there is another vote, and it's a No, then democratic nature will take its course, the appetite will likely die away. I'd say only democracy should decide if and when it's raised again.

[Konrad von Carstein]

3 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Hopefully the new Prime Minister  will not meet the head of the Scottish Administration in Bute Hoose but tell her to go to Downlng Street if she wants to meet with Goverment about anything 

Shhhh! There's adults talking...sit down and eat your crisps...

[Horatio Caine]

5 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Hopefully the new Prime Minister  will not meet the head of the Scottish Administration in Bute Hoose but tell her to go to Downlng Street if she wants to meet with Goverment about anything 

Well that won't happen since they're going to ignore her - apparently.

 

Can't understand any Scot who backs the Tories.

[Shooter McGavin]

18 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Hopefully the new Prime Minister  will not meet the head of the Scottish Administration in Bute Hoose but tell her to go to Downlng Street if she wants to meet with Goverment about anything 

Lol now that would be mega funny

[I P Knightley]

5 hours ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Tory *******s  !! 

That needed to be said.

 

3 hours ago, Horatio Caine said:

If the Tories really believe there is no appetite for another referendum, then why don't they just say - All right, let's have one.  Then, if the result is still a `No` that really does put it to bed for a long time.

But the Tories are actually scared the result would be a `Yes`.

I try to avoid Independence discussions but bloody Truss has got me thinking. I know there's been a good discussion subsequent to this post about setting terms of a possible indy ref but I don't understand what the Torys' game is re Scotland. Truss will change her tune more often than she changes her knickers but what she said last night was a massive Eff Off and she's not yet backtracked on it. It's almost as if she's saying that the Scots can go feck themsleves as can the NornIrish. NI has no impact on her power base in Westminster but shaking off the Scots would strengthen the Tory hold on England & Wales.

 

I was never convinced by Salmond & Co that indy was a good idea. It seemed to be a wee bit: green grass on other side of the fence with a large helping of shoulder chips. Nothing constructive or positive. Now, though, I'd be more inclined to support it. Not because the arguments are any more positive or coherent but the state that Cameron/May/Johnson have put the UK in and which Truss (or Sunak) will double down on is just unbearable and we're now at the point that anything has got to be better than what we're getting from WM. I know I don't have a vote but I'd be pretty sure that there are many who do who'll have a similar shift in view.

 

We know, though, that any claims from Tories about no appetite for another referendum are little more than wishful thinking and uninformed bullcrap. They don't measure it; they don't listen; they have no idea.

[Boab]

9 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

That needed to be said.

 

I try to avoid Independence discussions but bloody Truss has got me thinking. I know there's been a good discussion subsequent to this post about setting terms of a possible indy ref but I don't understand what the Torys' game is re Scotland. Truss will change her tune more often than she changes her knickers but what she said last night was a massive Eff Off and she's not yet backtracked on it. It's almost as if she's saying that the Scots can go feck themsleves as can the NornIrish. NI has no impact on her power base in Westminster but shaking off the Scots would strengthen the Tory hold on England & Wales.

 

I was never convinced by Salmond & Co that indy was a good idea. It seemed to be a wee bit: green grass on other side of the fence with a large helping of shoulder chips. Nothing constructive or positive. Now, though, I'd be more inclined to support it. Not because the arguments are any more positive or coherent but the state that Cameron/May/Johnson have put the UK in and which Truss (or Sunak) will double down on is just unbearable and we're now at the point that anything has got to be better than what we're getting from WM. I know I don't have a vote but I'd be pretty sure that there are many who do who'll have a similar shift in view.

 

We know, though, that any claims from Tories about no appetite for another referendum are little more than wishful thinking and uninformed bullcrap. They don't measure it; they don't listen; they have no idea.

Since this thread is about Tory lies, I agree completely on your last paragraph. If there was no appetite for it, as they claim, the Nats wouldn't have been returned as the SG with that policy as their flagship and expressed so in their manifesto.

They had the biggest liar in UK political history until recently and are on the verge of replacing him with the biggest idiot. 

I don't believe a word of their claptrap.