Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Doubt we’ve heard the last of Mr Yakoob, he’ll soon probably be a low rent daytime TV presenter.

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/breaki ... over-again

Grace Blakeley utilizes her one year of working as a management consultant at KPMG to ponder why Reeves isn't chucking all the money at public services herself, personally, now.

Fenton's pet twat was getting worked up about this too. Apparently, the "Micawber tendency" (?) are so inept that they forgot to brief the PM on showing "nuance" when it comes to the far right, which is incredibly embarrassing for him, or proves he's a far right Quisling, or something.

What's "lussing" ?

Nigredo wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:14 am https://tribunemag.co.uk/2024/07/breaki ... over-again

Grace Blakeley utilizes her one year of working as a management consultant at KPMG to ponder why Reeves isn't chucking all the money at public services herself, personally, now.

It remains to be seen what happens in the budget, but this is an odd comment.

The worst possible scenario is some combination of the two — cuts to productive investment alongside increasingly wasteful public spending decisions that do not increase long-term productivity. This scenario is, as you might have guessed, not some far off possibility. It describes our current economic reality. Successive governments have dished out billions to the wealthy and powerful while allowing the resources everyone else needs to survive to collapse.

If the issue is extravagant wasteful spending, why the reaction against austerity? Surely with taxes high by historic standards and very little spare capacity and fairly expensive borrowing, there would seem to be a lot to be said for a fairly austere approach, with existing spending redirected to better things.

It'll also be news to the wealthy that their taxes haven't gone up.

Rather than wasting money on private sector consultants, unnecessary and polluting infrastructure projects, or just outright corruption, the government could prioritise investments that would actually expand the supply of available resources over the long run. What would such an approach look like?

It would mean fewer massive, glamorous infrastructure projects that made use of expensive private sector financing and advice, and many more smaller, more sustainable investments. Investments like improving existing public transport capacity in areas currently underserved by our woeful privatised bus and rail services; or expanding renewable energy across the country; or funding desperately needed research into the climate crisis, and the development of new technologies to tackle it.

Rail investment, famously cheap. And this sounds like pretty much the worst approach, what's called "crayonning" by rail people- you look at a map and think "Hmmm, big gap there between Gloucester and Ledbury let's fill that in with a railway line. Actually look, there used to be a railway there!Imagine how great it would be we brought it back!"

There follows a campaign where a bunch of people tell you they'd definitely use it, and the politicians pushing it (Lib Dem in the past, more likely Green now, but "backbencher" types of all parties get involved too. Everyone feels very down to earth because who needs to get to Birmingham quicker, eh? Some silly costings follow, and it goes nowhere.

Certainly, some lines could be brought back at a later stage, but in the meantime there are problems with capacity on mainlines that need fixing. Without doing that, all you'd be adding is shuttles, which are of limited use. Lots of money has been spent on improving capacity on existring lines, but it doesn't realy look any different on a map. But building it gives you a lot more through routes to different places here people definitely do want to go.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2024 8:50 pm

It's amazing that they can convince themselves of this stuff. Yeah, Keir. Bet you're OK with people burning down hotels, because you don't want to offend the Red Wall!

Notice how Frances here is operating in bad faith

Good Lord



Genocides and Jennifer Lopez.

The world is a very simple place to understand once you realise the only thing that matters is Palestine.

Saudis are part of a plot to erase Islam! Mr Miller's doctor needs to increase his dosage.

I have heard that the Sunni and Shi'a lads don't get on at all well together. Even been at each other's throats since before Mo Johnston signed for Glasgow Rohingyas.

Nutters, the lot of them.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 8:56 pm I have heard that the Sunni and Shi'a lads don't get on at all well together. Even been at each other's throats since before Mo Johnston signed for Glasgow Rohingyas.

Nutters, the lot of them.

And when you point out that other sects of Islam don't support you, the answer is 'they're not real Muslims' in just the same way that I've heard Catholics say Protestants are not 'proper Christians' and vice versa.
It's cultish tribalism or as James O'Brien calls it "Footballification".

A blind man on a galloping horse might have concluded that that was my point...

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:27 pm A blind man on a galloping horse might have concluded that that was my point...

Indeed. The same blind man might also have spotted that I was agreeing with you.

Ell Folan who is behind the tedious stats for letfies X account says its ok if China annexes Taiwan because reasons.

Well, you can call a truce, because you're both right! Taiwan is indeed a remnant of the old Chinese Republic, and relies heavily on American interest in keeping it out of Beijing's hands. Its government are, like many in that part of the world, a bunch of cunts. But that's no reason to let the commies at them. Who are also a bunch of cunts.

They have elections they're not some backwards dictatorship.

Having elections does not preclude the government being a bunch of cunts.

The last 14 years in the UK being evidence of that.