Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Labour party, first 100 days in office.


L.A.T.1961

Recommended Posts

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Setton said:

If you believe all that, the only one who's clueless is you. And willfully so.

It's kind of sad to watch you go to pieces over losing an election.

Another day and another screw up. Liebour commit to increase defence spending by 2.5% because Starmer is at some swanky NATO party. When asked when it will be implemented they said, we don't know as we haven't opened the books yet!!!! So it's either uncosted spend or more wishy washy BS. As for the lame argument that they don't know what's in the books: 1. The IFS has already issued a warning that that won't wash as it is very transparent; 2. How did Liebour ever respond to budgets if they didn't know the numbers? They obviously did but now they are in power they come across as lacking vision or there's a great deal of decision anxiety.

It is a very weak response by Liebour.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

 

Lammy in a role that is putting him on a collision course with Trump who will make mincemeat of him due to Lammy's awful, poor-thought through comments, and now thinks trans men can grow a cervix.

I think I've found another cervix, Mr Starmer seems to pick them quite well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Another day and another screw up. Liebour commit to increase defence spending by 2.5% because Starmer is at some swanky NATO party.

Another commitment which was in their manifesto. Only a surprise to the ill informed or illiterate.

Quote

When asked when it will be implemented they said, we don't know as we haven't opened the books yet!!!! So it's either uncosted spend or more wishy washy BS. As for the lame argument that they don't know what's in the books: 1. The IFS has already issued a warning that that won't wash as it is very transparent; 2. How did Liebour ever respond to budgets if they didn't know the numbers? They obviously did but now they are in power they come across as lacking vision or there's a great deal of decision anxiety.

It is a very weak response by Liebour.

Except that isn't what they said. They said they're not going to slap an arbitrary deadline on it without doing the proper research. They've commissioned a comprehensive review of defence to determine the current state of our armed forces after 14 years of neglect under the Tories.

Once that review is complete, then they've said they'll be able to set a date to aim for.

This is how government works when you have one that actually wants to run things right instead of running on sound bites. Research to make informed decisions takes time.

I can see why it's unfamiliar after the last few years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Lammy in a role that is putting him on a collision course with Trump who will make mincemeat of him due to Lammy's awful, poor-thought through comments, and now thinks trans men can grow a cervix.

I think I've found another cervix, Mr Starmer seems to pick them quite well.

🤦‍♂️ Trans men would have a cervix, you utter wazzock.

And personally I'm absolutely fine with us forging closer security ties with Europe over an increasingly isolationist US.

What's the point in a "special relationship" that only goes one way? Trump's made it clear he won't defend allies unless it suits him. We need better allies and the previous governments have done a great job of burning bridges everywhere else.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Another commitment which was in their manifesto. Only a surprise to the ill informed or illiterate.

Except that isn't what they said. They said they're not going to slap an arbitrary deadline on it without doing the proper research. They've commissioned a comprehensive review of defence to determine the current state of our armed forces after 14 years of neglect under the Tories.

Once that review is complete, then they've said they'll be able to set a date to aim for.

This is how government works when you have one that actually wants to run things right instead of running on sound bites. Research to make informed decisions takes time.

I can see why it's unfamiliar after the last few years.

He has literally been on Radio 4 an hour ago saying they haven't opened the books. 

As for upping spending without looking to increase the tax burden on working people whilst chowing down on a prawn sandwich and sipping a champagne with NATO... 

14 years they've had to plan a response, 14 years. And 1 week in, all we have is same lame words about 'change' and words aligned to the World Economic Forum but then he loved Davos as did the shadow Chancellor at the time.who also attended. The champagne has turned their heads. We expected better but there's a lack of self discipline and no vision or plan, while workers will suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

🤦‍♂️ Trans men would have a cervix, you utter wazzock.

And personally I'm absolutely fine with us forging closer security ties with Europe over an increasingly isolationist US.

What's the point in a "special relationship" that only goes one way? Trump's made it clear he won't defend allies unless it suits him. We need better allies and the previous governments have done a great job of burning bridges everywhere else.

A special relationship? Where we insult people who are allies. Classy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

A special relationship? Where we insult people who are allies. Classy.

You've not come across Trump, I take it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

He has literally been on Radio 4 an hour ago saying they haven't opened the books. 

How sad to have to make up lies just to make yourself feel better about losing.

Quote

As for upping spending without looking to increase the tax burden on working people whilst chowing down on a prawn sandwich and sipping a champagne with NATO... 

And yet you took no issues with the Tories promising the same increase by 2030.

Labour have said they'll meet it "when finances allow". So it's actually the Tories promising more spending.

You're either the most uninformed voter in history or willfully deceitful.

Quote

14 years they've had to plan a response, 14 years. And 1 week in, all we have is same lame words about 'change' and words aligned to the World Economic Forum but then he loved Davos as did the shadow Chancellor at the time.who also attended. The champagne has turned their heads. We expected better but there's a lack of self discipline and no vision or plan, while workers will suffer.

No, you've actually got a very detailed and comprehensive plan. But I doubt your failed celebrities on GB News will tell you that.

And the manifesto does have some awfully big words in it, doesn't it?

Manifesto, for one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

How sad to have to make up lies just to make yourself feel better about losing.

And yet you took no issues with the Tories promising the same increase by 2030.

Labour have said they'll meet it "when finances allow". So it's actually the Tories promising more spending.

You're either the most uninformed voter in history or willfully deceitful.

No, you've actually got a very detailed and comprehensive plan. But I doubt your failed celebrities on GB News will tell you that.

And the manifesto does have some awfully big words in it, doesn't it?

Manifesto, for one.

The quote is a matter of record, no amount of gaslighting changes that but it does shine a light back on you.

There is no plan and Liebour are in. A week in and it's a woke shambles.

I'd respectfully suggest keeping your posting powder dry as there'll be more incoming, they lack the experience, vision, plan, decision making prowess. It's tough to lead and they are failing us all currently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OpenMindedSceptic said:

The quote is a matter of record, no amount of gaslighting changes that but it does shine a light back on you.

There is no plan and Liebour are in. A week in and it's a woke shambles.

I'd respectfully suggest keeping your posting powder dry as there'll be more incoming, they lack the experience, vision, plan, decision making prowess. It's tough to lead and they are failing us all currently.

Oh I'm sure there will be more fantasy coming from you.

It's very little effort to pick out your lies so don't worry about me.

I think I can just about keep up with the intellectual challenge 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Setton said:

If you believe all that, the only one who's clueless is you. And willfully so.

It's kind of sad to watch you go to pieces over losing an election.

No, it's not. It's a laugh. It's also a laugh watching Braverman and Badenoch running down their Party and each other, and the rest of them in-fighting. It's a curious thing that they can all see clearly what they were doing wrong now, but were oblivious to it until the public raised the finger to them (as Andrea Jenkins did to the public a few months back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Another commitment which was in their manifesto. Only a surprise to the ill informed or illiterate.

Except that isn't what they said. They said they're not going to slap an arbitrary deadline on it without doing the proper research. They've commissioned a comprehensive review of defence to determine the current state of our armed forces after 14 years of neglect under the Tories.

Once that review is complete, then they've said they'll be able to set a date to aim for.

This is how government works when you have one that actually wants to run things right instead of running on sound bites. Research to make informed decisions takes time.

I can see why it's unfamiliar after the last few years.

Defense is not foreign aid or filling holes in the road. 

There should be a recognition that some things need immediate action especially with Putin looking over our shoulder.

Deciding to wait for a review looks like a half hearted position, especially with the Labour parties previous position on defense.

It sends the wrong message.  

This is probably Starmer's first big strategic mistake. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Defense is not foreign aid or filling holes in the road. 

There should be a recognition that some things need immediate action especially with Putin looking over our shoulder.

Deciding to wait for a review looks like a half hearted position, especially with the Labour parties previous position on defense.

It sends the wrong message.  

This is probably Starmer's first big strategic mistake. 

Totally disagree. It shows this government actually takes its responsibilities seriously, and will look to address our defence and security needs over cheap political points that sound good but never actually happen. And finally a government that will actually listen to the experts in their field rather than try to strongarm those experts to agree with their poorly thought out political posturing.

The solution to our defence needs isn't just up the budget to 2.5% if that 2.5% is spent on the wrong things. We won't be at war with Russia in the next couple of years, if it does come, after the mauling they've suffered in Ukraine. We need to plan strategically, take the lessons from the battlefields in Ukraine, and make the investment in the most significant areas for the future of modern warfare.

I'm also particularly enjoying how voters on the right are acting like this is a huge surprise or "his first mistake".

Just shows what an uninformed position you all voted from. This was all announced pre-election. And was what the people elected this government on.

How brief your support for democracy is...

Edited by Setton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Setton said:

You've not come across Trump, I take it?

Yeah, the guy that stopped dropping bombs after the war crazed Obama went crazy with bombs.

The one that built the American economy.

The one elected after the 'deporter in chief' as the Mexicans call Obama, Trump actually did something positive fir the border.

The one that stopped N Korea with a Tweet.

The one that started to drain the swamp.

The one that did more for blacks than Obama and Buden combined.

The one that stood against wokeism.

The one without alzheimers or age related disease that makes him unfit for office.

The one that didn't turn off the energy supply lines with Canada (maybe Biden pressed the wrong button).

The one that will be elected again as president.

Yeah, I know him.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Yeah, the guy that stopped dropping bombs after the war crazed Obama went crazy with bombs.

The one that built the American economy.

The one elected after the 'deporter in chief' as the Mexicans call Obama, Trump actually did something positive fir the border.

The one that stopped N Korea with a Tweet.

The one that started to drain the swamp.

The one that did more for blacks than Obama and Buden combined.

The one that stood against wokeism.

The one without alzheimers or age related disease that makes him unfit for office.

The one that didn't turn off the energy supply lines with Canada (maybe Biden pressed the wrong button).

The one that will be elected again as president.

Yeah, I know him.

 

See what I mean? Such entertainment. Always the extra mile from you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Setton said:

See what I mean? Such entertainment. Always the extra mile from you.

I've demonstrated that you do not know Trump beyond meedya headlines. We can all see how your 'informed' political stance has been conjured up lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

I've demonstrated that you do not know Trump beyond meedya headlines. We can all see how your 'informed' political stance has been conjured up lol

Whereas yours is informed by your regular team and hookers get togethers with him? 😆

You've demonstrated absolutely nothing beyond your own ignorance, as usual.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Setton said:

Totally disagree. It shows this government actually takes its responsibilities seriously, and will look to address our defence and security needs over cheap political points that sound good but never actually happen. And finally a government that will actually listen to the experts in their field rather than try to strongarm those experts to agree with their poorly thought out political posturing.

The solution to our defence needs isn't just up the budget to 2.5% if that 2.5% is spent on the wrong things. We won't be at war with Russia in the next couple of years, if it does come, after the mauling they've suffered in Ukraine. We need to plan strategically, take the lessons from the battlefields in Ukraine, and make the investment in the most significant areas for the future of modern warfare.

I'm also particularly enjoying how voters on the right are acting like this is a huge surprise or "his first mistake".

Just shows what an uninformed position you all voted from. This was all announced pre-election. And was what the people elected this government on.

How brief your support for democracy is...

Lord Dannatt is an expert and thinks the risk is real and, not as you suggest, not a when but if a conflict breaks out.

There has just been a military assessment done ( Dr rob Johnson), so the call from Starmer for another is just procrastination.

Prime Minister refuses to guarantee reaching 2.5% defence spending in first term

“The manifesto commitment was that it would take place within a year, I would like it to be quicker than that if I’m honest and we’ll set out the details about how we are going to do it.”

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2024/07/10/prime-minister-refuses-to-guarantee-reaching-25-defence-spending-in-first-term/

Labour will not want to commit to higher spending for as long as possible as they would much rather spend the money on something more important

I would say a 5 year delay, to meet the higher target, is as long as they can push it as it will become an issue at the next election. 

What they decided to spend money on is a red herring as tech is moving at pace and there has to be a line drawn in the sand sometime and commit to buying kit.

Whenever the decision is made on procurement it will be quickly outdated, maybe before it has arrived with the military. 

Another review makes no difference to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Lord Dannatt is an expert and thinks the risk is real and, not as you suggest, not a when but if a conflict breaks out.

 

Everything is an if. "When" is better for getting people to sit up and listen but no analyst worth their salt would ever tell you something "is" going to happen. The civil service has a specific set of definitions used for assessments. The highest is "almost certain".

Quote

There has just been a military assessment done ( Dr rob Johnson), so the call from Starmer for another is just procrastination.

Prime Minister refuses to guarantee reaching 2.5% defence spending in first term

“The manifesto commitment was that it would take place within a year, I would like it to be quicker than that if I’m honest and we’ll set out the details about how we are going to do it.”

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2024/07/10/prime-minister-refuses-to-guarantee-reaching-25-defence-spending-in-first-term/

Labour will not want to commit to higher spending for as long as possible as they would much rather spend the money on something more important. 

I would say a 5 year delay, to meet the higher target, is as long as they can push it as it will become an issue at the next election. 

So, still a year earlier than the Tories had planned but their supporters are claiming Starmer is delaying? 😆

Quote

What they decided to spend money on is a red herring as tech is moving at pace and there has to be a line drawn in the sand sometime and commit to buying kit.

Yes, and that line is "once the review is complete". 

It's no red herring to say a government should invest in the kit most likely to have the biggest benefit...

That kind of rushing to spend money is great for giving lucrative PPE contracts to your friends. Not so good for defence.

Quote

 

Whenever the decision is made on procurement it will be quickly outdated, maybe before it has arrived with the military. 

Another review makes no difference to this.

 

Actually this is exactly why a review is needed. Ukraine has provided an opportunity to test our capabilities against a near-peer for the first time in 80 years. We should be taking the learning from that and investing in the right areas, including engaging in horizon scanning to invest for the future, based on today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, Liebour want to release 20,000 prisoners early!!! 

They're also stopping oil.and gas licences and starting a green fund... screw the base load requirement.

It's all like a big surprise to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2024 at 7:04 PM, Setton said:

🤦‍♂️ Trans men would have a cervix, you utter wazzock.

And personally I'm absolutely fine with us forging closer security ties with Europe over an increasingly isolationist US.

What's the point in a "special relationship" that only goes one way? Trump's made it clear he won't defend allies unless it suits him. We need better allies and the previous governments have done a great job of burning bridges everywhere else.

There are men, there are women and then there are women pretending to be men. So my point is men do not have a cervix. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

There are men, there are women and then there are women pretending to be men. So my point is men do not have a cervix. 

Don't try and backpedal. You tried to claim Lammy didn't know what he was talking about because he said trans men could have a cervix.

Now I've shown it's you who hasn't a clue what they're talking about, you're trying to shift to parroting bigoted talking points instead.

About as expected but still worth calling out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Setton said:

Everything is an if. "When" is better for getting people to sit up and listen but no analyst worth their salt would ever tell you something "is" going to happen. The civil service has a specific set of definitions used for assessments. The highest is "almost certain".

So, still a year earlier than the Tories had planned but their supporters are claiming Starmer is delaying? 😆

Yes, and that line is "once the review is complete". 

It's no red herring to say a government should invest in the kit most likely to have the biggest benefit...

That kind of rushing to spend money is great for giving lucrative PPE contracts to your friends. Not so good for defence.

Actually this is exactly why a review is needed. Ukraine has provided an opportunity to test our capabilities against a near-peer for the first time in 80 years. We should be taking the learning from that and investing in the right areas, including engaging in horizon scanning to invest for the future, based on today.

Always expect the unexpected.

And it would not be unexpected if a review gives us a meaningful heads up for exactly what should be done. The popular assessment before Russia invaded Ukraine was it wouldn't invade Ukraine. 

Ukraine shows us that substantial change happens in war and predicting it, to a level that is beneficial, is a fallacy.

All it does is cover the ar#e of those making decisions if it goes wrong in the future.

Starmer is ar#e covering.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Always expect the unexpected.

And it would not be unexpected if a review gives us a meaningful heads up for exactly what should be done. The popular assessment before Russia invaded Ukraine was it wouldn't invade Ukraine. 

Ukraine shows us that substantial change happens in war and predicting it, to a level that is beneficial, is a fallacy.

All it does is cover the ar#e of those making decisions if it goes wrong in the future.

Starmer is ar#e covering.

Actually the prevailing assessment in the run up to the invasion was that invasion was imminent.

Again, great talking point for those "tired of experts", falls down when faced with reality.

I'm afraid you're just out of your depth when it comes to assessments and forecasting. I don't have time to educate you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.