Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 20:31:34 GMT
I don't recognise you as moderates at all and have said why umpteen times now. It is a self description I do not acknowledge. There is nothing moderate about your conduct and political positions around here. Many will see that you sound more extreme than I do. Even though I am in the center-LEFT of politics LOL, you can be funny without even trying. I do recognise you as being amongst the more extreme element of the Labour party. Those looking for a more extreme approach don't even know what moderation in politics is, even though it is obvious to anyone of average intelligence. You must live amongst a bunch seriously ill informed and overly biased individuals. You mean the approach of that great extremist, Attlee? You would be funny if you were not so confused. And I don't recognise you as anything left. Again you spout the lie that I am an extremist just for being - like Attlee - a democratic socialist. And as I have already told you, I am not any element in your godforsaken party. I left it because my principles are more important to me than naked tribalism |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 20:33:34 GMT
The centre is not where it was in 1997. It is much more where Labour's 2017 manifesto is. And no rational view of UK politics would view unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation, detention without trial, and the continuation of already demonstrably disastrous Tory housing policies as anything other than the extreme position to take. 1, Why don't you get yourself informed on the invasion of Iraq instead of posting your opinion as if it was fact. Doing what you do is just dishonest. 2. Norther Ireland needed some cooling down, but IIRC it was a disaster and didn't last long. 3. I understand why you are in your dire position in politics, you just live by your opinions and post your opinions as if they were facts. I post opinions based on facts and - crucially, where I seem to differ from you - on principles that matter more to me than party. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 1, 2023 20:44:04 GMT
House repossessions in 2006, were below 1997 when NL entered office. Peak house repossessions 2009 (just one year on its own) well below the Tory period 1991 to 1995, and still falling 2010 to 2012. Cable's understandable political opposition to NL, he was a political opponent, was only given any credibility because of the international financial meltdown. But house repossessions on 125% mortgages have a big impact on bank stability , those on 80% mortgages don't. And that 2006 repossessions were higher than 2005 which was higher than 2004 wasn't because the underlying economy was stable was it. And remember the household debt that fueled that idiot boom (and was secured mostly on those houses) ran out of steam same time - and before the wider world crash. This was a crash all of the UK's doing - and led by Brown and King while Blair was looking elsewhere. .  My point was that the housing repossessions were well lower than under the Tories, and that is a fact. I have acknowledged a number of times in the past that the economy was thought, around 2005/06 to be over heating . It still didn't unleash the IFM on European economies. The Banks and building societies controlled the lending, and they believed it was sound business in the pre-meltdown period. I guess much of that debt was carried through into later years. Years of whinging by the Tories about too much red tape plus the calls from the banks and industry for deregulation played a part in creating the general atmosphere for the financial situation at that time. Another gremlin in the works was that Banks could also be Building Societies and vice versa. AFAIA there were no such things as 125% mortgages per se. what there was were mortgages plus a loan. Before deregulation a mortgage and a loan would done separately, one in a bank and the other in a building society. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 1, 2023 20:57:50 GMT
Even though I am in the center-LEFT of politics LOL, you can be funny without even trying. I do recognise you as being amongst the more extreme element of the Labour party. Those looking for a more extreme approach don't even know what moderation in politics is, even though it is obvious to anyone of average intelligence. You must live amongst a bunch seriously ill informed and overly biased individuals. You mean the approach of that great extremist, Attlee? You would be funny if you were not so confused. And I don't recognise you as anything left. It is clear that you don't read and digest my posts. I have posted that in my opinion because of the horrors of pre-WWII UK, the UK needed a good dose of socialism after WWII. I have also posted that we got it from Clem Attlee, and I have always been glad of that. BUT the country decided it didn't want to go any further down that road, and some thought that Attlee went too far anyway. It seems you want to revisit that dead end road again and again.
The confusion is all yours. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 1, 2023 21:01:39 GMT
1, Why don't you get yourself informed on the invasion of Iraq instead of posting your opinion as if it was fact. Doing what you do is just dishonest. 2. Norther Ireland needed some cooling down, but IIRC it was a disaster and didn't last long. 3. I understand why you are in your dire position in politics, you just live by your opinions and post your opinions as if they were facts. I post opinions based on facts and - crucially, where I seem to differ from you - on principles that matter more to me than party. No, you post opinions based upon opinions, your repeated misguided opinion on the invasion of Iraq is a glaring example of that. You do it even though you have been given the relevant UN Security Res. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 21:55:14 GMT
I post opinions based on facts and - crucially, where I seem to differ from you - on principles that matter more to me than party. No, you post opinions based upon opinions, your repeated misguided opinion on the invasion of Iraq is a glaring example of that. You do it even though you have been given the relevant UN Security Res. There was no vote on the war because of the certainty of it being vetoed. They had to fall back on a resolution insisting that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors. All the evidence suggests that they did. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that they did. The USA said they did not but offered no convincing evidence and were proved wrong after the fact when no weapons were found. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said after the invasion that it was illegal at the time that it happened. Colin Powell has subsequently expressed regret that he was wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had thereby complied with UN resolutions in full. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_WarMost experts regard the invasion as being of dubious legality and it was certainly unprovoked and launched on what proved to be a wholly false pretext. And Blair and his government were complicit in dodgy dossiers of such obvious fabrication that it was blatantly obvious at the time to anyone with an ounce of common sense that we were being lied to. It was a shameful episode in our history when Blair himself strode the world stage in the role of Bush's toady, to a breathtakingly cringeworthy and nationally shaming extent. So much so that no less a person than Nelson Mandela mockingly referred to him as the US foreign secretary rather than the British Prime Minister. Your supposed facts are -shall we say - highly debateable and open to severe question. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 1, 2023 22:17:28 GMT
But house repossessions on 125% mortgages have a big impact on bank stability , those on 80% mortgages don't. And that 2006 repossessions were higher than 2005 which was higher than 2004 wasn't because the underlying economy was stable was it. And remember the household debt that fueled that idiot boom (and was secured mostly on those houses) ran out of steam same time - and before the wider world crash. This was a crash all of the UK's doing - and led by Brown and King while Blair was looking elsewhere. . My point was that the housing repossessions were well lower than under the Tories, and that is a fact. I have acknowledged a number of times in the past that the economy was thought, around 2005/06 to be over heating . It still didn't unleash the IFM on European economies. The Banks and building societies controlled the lending, and they believed it was sound business in the pre-meltdown period. I guess much of that debt was carried through into later years. Years of whinging by the Tories about too much red tape plus the calls from the banks and industry for deregulation played a part in creating the general atmosphere for the financial situation at that time. Another gremlin in the works was that Banks could also be Building Societies and vice versa. AFAIA there were no such things as 125% mortgages per se. what there was were mortgages plus a loan. Before deregulation a mortgage and a loan would done separately, one in a bank and the other in a building society. I love the way you blame the excess consumer debt in the 13 years of a Labour government on 'Tory whinging' rather than Labour Government policy. You are a hoot..  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 22:28:24 GMT
My point was that the housing repossessions were well lower than under the Tories, and that is a fact. I have acknowledged a number of times in the past that the economy was thought, around 2005/06 to be over heating . It still didn't unleash the IFM on European economies. The Banks and building societies controlled the lending, and they believed it was sound business in the pre-meltdown period. I guess much of that debt was carried through into later years. Years of whinging by the Tories about too much red tape plus the calls from the banks and industry for deregulation played a part in creating the general atmosphere for the financial situation at that time. Another gremlin in the works was that Banks could also be Building Societies and vice versa. AFAIA there were no such things as 125% mortgages per se. what there was were mortgages plus a loan. Before deregulation a mortgage and a loan would done separately, one in a bank and the other in a building society. I love the way you blame the excess consumer debt in the 13 years of a Labour government on 'Tory whinging' rather than Labour Government policy. You are a hoot.. He is a blindly loyal New Labour tribalist. He will justify and defend to the hilt anything and everything Blair and his government ever did, and if you disagree with him he you riske being called an extremist. He cannot get the idea out of his head that I myself am supposedly some sort of extremist when I clearly am not. And he is one of the very few people left in this country who still sees nothing wrong with the 2003 invasion of Iraq - naturally because Blair can do no wrong so it must be okay. It therefore follows that anything bad that happened on Blair's watch - if it cannot be portrayed as good - must be someone else's fault. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 1, 2023 22:58:19 GMT
The centre is not where it was in 1997. It is much more where Labour's 2017 manifesto is. And no rational view of UK politics would view unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation, detention without trial, and the continuation of already demonstrably disastrous Tory housing policies as anything other than the extreme position to take. 1, Why don't you get yourself informed on the invasion of Iraq instead of posting your opinion as if it was fact. Doing what you do is just dishonest. 2. Norther Ireland needed some cooling down, but IIRC it was a disaster and didn't last long. 3. I understand why you are in your dire position in politics, you just live by your opinions and post your opinions as if they were facts. And SRB's forgotten that that detention without trial (and shoot to kill) were all brought in by the Tories not Blair |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 23:12:32 GMT
1, Why don't you get yourself informed on the invasion of Iraq instead of posting your opinion as if it was fact. Doing what you do is just dishonest. 2. Norther Ireland needed some cooling down, but IIRC it was a disaster and didn't last long. 3. I understand why you are in your dire position in politics, you just live by your opinions and post your opinions as if they were facts. And SRB's forgotten that that detention without trial (and shoot to kill) were all brought in by the Tories not Blair Blair tried to get detention without charge for 90 days through but failed, but succeeded in getting 28 days without charge through. This is detention without charge let alone trial.... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 1, 2023 23:20:44 GMT
And SRB's forgotten that that detention without trial (and shoot to kill) were all brought in by the Tories not Blair Blair tried to get detention without charge for 90 days through but failed, but succeeded in getting 28 days without charge through. This is detention without charge let alone trial.... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stmA reasonable response to the 7/7 mass murders |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 23:27:11 GMT
Blair tried to get detention without charge for 90 days through but failed, but succeeded in getting 28 days without charge through. This is detention without charge let alone trial.... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stmA reasonable response to the 7/7 mass murders A kneejerk extremist response amounting to a calculated undermining of civil liberties, liberties designed to protect us from a state sanctioned regime of detention without charge or trial. He wanted 90 days without charge. 90 days! That is tantamount to a 3 month prison sentence without conviction or even enough evidence to charge. Where there are the safeguards for the innocent wrongly suspected? If we allow terrorists to provoke the abandonment of our civil liberties in the name of security, then they have already scored a victory. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Jan 1, 2023 23:28:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2023 23:34:34 GMT
I cannot look at your evidence because it appears to be behind a paywall. Though I suspect that if you were accurate there would have been a much greater furore over it. And the need to justify the war after the fact was pretty great, I find it hard to believe that if such evidence existed it would have been successfully sat on, with just the occasional mention in the press apparently being ignored by almost all. I don't buy it but cannot assess your evidence for myself. Getting a bit late now anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jan 1, 2023 23:36:00 GMT
A reasonable response to the 7/7 mass murders A kneejerk extremist response amounting to a calculated undermining of civil liberties, liberties designed to protect us from a state sanctioned regime of detention without charge or trial. He wanted 90 days without charge. 90 days! That is tantamount to a 3 month prison sentence without conviction or even enough evidence to charge. Where there are the safeguards for the innocent wrongly suspected? If we allow terrorists to provoke the abandonment of our civil liberties in the name of security, then they have already scored a victory. When others were calling for far more extreme responses to people being mass murdered on our streets it is really out of order to claim that policy the security services needed was any for of extremism You may not like it but to most people it really was the least worst of the options when it was realised just how in our face and lethal domestic terrorism had become. |
|
