You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Are there any defined policies from the varied Conservative candidates?
Or are only other parties supposed to produce these
Looks like we haven't seen anything yet on the tory civil war
This is from the editor of Conservative home
https://conservativehome.com/2022/10/21/totentanz/
Last few paragraphs are eloquent but brutal
The thought occurs that maybe the Conservative Party no longer cares. Perhaps the sum of its ambition is to become the provisional wing of the right-wing entertainment industry: happy to preach to a diminishing band of true believers, and good for a newpaper column or fringe TV turn, while Keir Starmer gets on with the tiresome business of actually running the country.
If so, it can look forward to a Prime Minister staffing his government with fifth raters, since the bulk of the 66 Ministers who resigned in the summer will refuse to serve. If a by-election forced by a Commons suspension doesn’t get him first. If the Tory benches don’t first vote down the report into his conduct that would trigger it, thus speeding the spiral of decline.
The Germans have a word for it: Totentanz – a dance of death. Conservative MPs, peers, donors, hacks and activists caper owards an open grave, with Death himself – sorry, Johnson – leading the procession. The dance possesses them; it has a momentum of its own; they are powerless to stop.
How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?
I didn't arrive at a conclusion, I asked you a question about a hypothetical voting scenario, which you chose not to answer...
So I'm assuming you're another closet conservative troll cos-playing as a "centrist" ignoring the statements Labour have made recently, the fact that we're not actually in GE/manifesto season yet and that the current government are still sitting on OBR reports and data that would inform Labour plans so you can try to deflect from the Utter shambles the Tories already are.
I don't doubt modern Labour have their flaws and agree that having 'not the Tories' as their main selling point to the electorate is far from ideal, but right now it's a better proposition than 'more of the same' for an electorate that can barely remember last month let alone give two shits about Gordon Brown...
johnson won’t do anything unless and until he’s as certain as he can be that he’s got 100+ backers
Apparently he's got 140 pledged already.
I don’t think it’s anywhere near a given that he’ll stand.
He would be daft to imo. Whoever the next Tory PM is, Johnson or anyone else, it is now all but certain that the Tories will lose the next general election. Losing a general election would do nothing for Johnson's ego.
If Johnson waits until Rishi Sunak or Penny Mordaunt has lost a general election for the Tories he can stand in the inevitable postelection leadership contest. If it all goes according to Johnson's script and Labour fails to resolve the mess they will have inherited, a more than likely possibility, Johnson can return triumphantly to Downing Street 5 years later.
His inflated ego might not let him have the patience to play the long game but I reckon his ego should be demanding that rather than the humiliation of losing a general election in two years time.
I can see Johnson keeping everyone waiting until the last moment before announcing his decision not to stand if for no other reason than dramatic effect. He is after all ever the showman.
And come the following Tory leadership contest he could claim that the continual pressure on him to stand was simply too much for him to ignore. It would be an act of selfless commitment to the country.
Johnson is running, just not officially yet.
Essex MP Sir James Duddridge says he has been in touch with the former PM, who says he is flying back from his Caribbean holiday to join the contest.
Duddridge tells the BBC's Jonathan Blake: "Boris is coming and he has the momentum and support. He is only election winner we have that has a proven track record in London, on Brexit and in gaining the mandate we have now."
The MP told the PA news agency he had received this WhatsApp message from Johnson: "I'm flying back, Dudders, we are going to do this. I'm up for it."
'defined policies' hahahahahaha
Sounds like a qoute from Capt Wee Wee Johns
Johnson is running, just not officially yet.
So he is holding out for dramatic effect then. I can't think of any another reason for not declaring his intentions other than relishing the "will he won't he" current media obsession.
He will want to make sure there is the 100 plus before he officially declares.
Plus he will want his media elite mates to hype him up as the second coming.
defined policies’ hahahahahaha
It's not really that funny. There is currently an ideological battle going on within the Tory Party. Liz Truss had very defined policies when she won the leadership contest a few weeks ago. She was subsequently spectacularly shafted by her own policies but that's not the point - they appealed to her supporters.
This leadership contest will also focus heavily on policy. If it is a straight Johnson v Sunak battle you can be sure that Sunak will overwhelmingly concentrate on policy differences with Johnson, as he did against Truss.
So he is holding out for dramatic effect then.
He wants to do the whole ‘I didn’t want to stand but I can’t resist the calls from colleagues so have to do my duty’ thing. Labour will be pissing themselves if Johnson wins. Sunak is clearly the biggest threat to them.
Is Truss standing?
She's so thick she could do it
A thoughtful quote from Johnson, that makes me feel a general election might be the full two years away if they appoint him…
https://twitter.com/tim_burgess/status/1513997127495602182?s=21
Labour fails to resolve the mess they will have inherited, a more than likely possibility
Not easy problems to fix for any party but 7 years is a long time before the election that will decide on how well people think Labour are doing. A lot can change in that time that can reverse a lot of the current issues which we be little to do with what any government has done but as long as Labour have done something that the majority will see as positive it may be enough although I realise the stupid people in this country will be returning to tory voting and forgetting about how shit the tories are for them at some point.
According to the news, Sunak is past 100 now and is in the running, Johnson and Mordaunt are “battling for votes”. According to the Standard at least.
The challenge is on to have Boris end with 99 backers.
Kevin Keegan will love it if that happened. 😆
Looks like we haven’t seen anything yet on the tory civil war
This is from the editor of Conservative home
He was interviewed on 5Live the other day sounding utterly fed up with the Tories, which made me chuckle.
Boris appears to be well on the way to 100. I suspect once he formally declares he'll hoover up a chunk of the remainder. You'd not want to burn that bridge and declare for someone not in the race unless you're a well known bozza supporter.
So I’m assuming you’re another closet conservative troll
Assuming stuff, without bothering to check the facts, can end up with you looking a bit stupid:
"We need a change of government. We need a Labour government.But we need a Labour government that will actually bring about the changes our society needs, not to just paper over the cracks."
Posted 20 hours ago
Oh. 🤭
It's the paramedics attending to head injuries that I feel sorry for
Assuming stuff, without bothering to check the facts, can end up with you looking a bit stupid:
Meh, still think your a closet conservative.
All this 'sounding caution' about Labour is a standard Tory deflection tactic now.
And you didn't say if you'd vote Tory or not, just that "we need a labour government" half the Tory party seem to accept they need to have a stint across the aisle now...
Nope this stranger on the internet is convinced that you're a Tory. But like all Tories I'm sure you can live with my disapproval... 😉
Meh, still think your a closet conservative.
All this ‘sounding caution’ about Labour is a standard Tory deflection tactic now.
And you didn’t say if you’d vote Tory or not, just that “we need a labour government” half the Tory party seem to accept they need to have a stint across the aisle now…
Every time I wonder how the Tory's get most people to vote against their own financial self interest I get reminded it's the Labour supporters doing that job for them.
Nope this stranger on the internet is convinced that you’re a Tory.
Ok. You believe what you want. In other news, the Earth is a globe... 🌍
Every time I wonder how the Tory’s get most people to vote against their own financial self interest I get reminded it’s the Labour supporters doing that job for them.
That's daft. Wanting a decent government who are actually capable of making the changes necessary for our society to survive, let alone progress, isn't 'doing the tories job for them'. Only an idiot would make such a conclusion.
In order for Labour to be effective, it needs to look at the mistakes of the past, its own included. And not make them again. And it needs to listen to all its members, and entertain a broad range of ideas. This is called learning. If Labour is unwilling to learn, it will be unfit to govern. Calling people tories for pointing out the blindingly obvious, it sheer stupidity.
Every time I wonder how the Tory’s get most people to vote against their own financial self interest I get reminded it’s the Labour supporters doing that job for them.
By being so insufferable, patronising and self-righteous that it makes you want to vote tory just to annoy them? Yes, I get that. It's like if there was another vote on brexit, I'd have to vote leave just because the remainers have been so irritating since they lost. Wouldn't want to of course, but would have to.
😉
'Idiot, stupidity, daft'...not very convincing techniques for delivering an argument or evidence, might be of some use in the playground.
…But if he can ditch his “clown” act he can be a formidable leader.
😂😂😂
Utterly **** delusional…
A nation sliding down the shitter and certain people still seem to think they can put a positive spin on Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson, or make out that he’s just one minor tweak of his character traits away from being PM material…
LOL! I did say "if". Yes, I doubt he can change. No, I am not putting any spin on Boris but merely saying the possibility(or not) of his chance. Having said that many people still like him.
T He’s going to ride that wave of libertarian ****tery right back into No.10.
Yes, I have to agree with that. Next he will be talking carbon emission or fairly tale energy source ...
This time next week Carrie will be reclining on the Chaise while he sits back in his Leather armchair both watching the news channels going bonkers… Our hero sits alternately swigging from a bottle of Bollinger in one hand taking bites from a family sized pork pie clutched in his other meaty fist.
So far I have left her out but I think her influence is there. She should simply stay out of it but then how can she avoid that being married to Boris. This is definitely not the climate for Carrie's giggles ...
By being so insufferable, patronising and self-righteous that it makes you want to vote tory just to annoy them?
They don't have to vote Tory though do they... there are more than 2 parties.
configuration
That’s daft. Wanting a decent government who are actually capable of making the changes necessary for our society to survive, let alone progress, isn’t ‘doing the tories job for them’. Only an idiot would make such a conclusion.
Erm nope I was replying to cookeaa's comment (that I don't think was entirely serious anyway) and that's what most voters actually want at the moment... not "unless you sign up to ALL of these ideals/beliefs you are a closet Tory".
‘Idiot, stupidity, daft’…not very convincing techniques for delivering an argument or evidence, might be of some use in the playground.
What about calling someone a tory, when they've already stated they want a Labour government?
Erm nope I was replying to cookeaa’s comment (that I don’t think was entirely serious anyway) and that’s what most voters actually want at the moment… not “unless you sign up to ALL of these ideals/beliefs you are a closet Tory”.
Sorry. It wasn't clear.
They don’t have to vote Tory though do they… there are more than 2 parties.
But then if someone were to express their intention to vote for anyone else, they'd run the risk of being accused of more or less voting for the tories anyway...
Graham Brady and the rest of the 1922 should have a giggle by deciding to raise the threshold to 125 just as Boris and his headbangers near the 100 mark.
configuration
What about calling someone a tory, when they’ve already stated they want a Labour government?
Well, do you want THEIR labour government or one that will be voted in?
But then if someone were to express their intention to vote for anyone else, they’d run the risk of being accused of more or less voting for the tories anyway…
Our local voting on the last GE was handed to the Tory's by Labour (yep only 1 seat but)
Right up to the end of voting they were posting a vote for the LibDem's was a vote for the Tory's.. even after they lost badly with enough votes to have put a non Tory in.
All this ‘sounding caution’ about Labour is a standard Tory deflection tactic now.
And you didn’t say if you’d vote Tory or not, just that “we need a labour government” half the Tory party seem to accept they need to have a stint across the aisle now…
What a daft comment. Apart from a brief stint 2015-18 I haven't electorally supported the Labour Party (other London mayoral elections) for over 25 years, despite being an affiliated member of the Labour Party. I just haven't felt able to - the gulf between its priorities and mine have simply been too great.
Other than for the purposes of childish taunting to accuse me of therefore being a Tory is patently absurd.
If the Labour Party feels that a non-Labour anti-Tory vote is a wasted vote then the Labour leader needs to revisit his recent public declaration that proportional representation will not be in the next Labour Party election manifesto, despite the Labour Party Conference having just voted in favour of PR.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/labour-party-conference-backs-proportional-representation/
The Labour leadership clearly wants to suppress, for example the Green vote, by deliberately maintaining a discredited, unpopular, and anti-democratic, electoral system.
It maintains this arrogant attitude - there are two choices only, us or them, Labour or Tory. An attitude clearly shared by some on here. It deliberately attempts to deny to people that they have any more choices than that.
And it is this arrogant sense of entitlement by the Labour establishment that they "own" your vote which has over the years alienated so many working-class once traditional Labour voters. It was Peter Mandelson who once told Peter Hain to 'stop fussing over the working class because they had nowhere else to go'.
In the local elections a few months ago I did not back Labour I backed the Green candidates (the Greens made their first ever breakthrough locally in that election) In the next general election I will in all probability do the same unless something dramatically changes, and all the more so as a Labour landslide appears to be all but certain. Although I will always regret not feeling able to vote for a party which I am affiliated to but which has been hijacked by middle-class self-serving professional careerists.
Far from being a Tory configuration sounds more committed to Labour than me - he is certainly not a Tory
I do dream of the complete meltdown of the Tory vote and a staggering landslide majority of 200-300 seats for Labour though, it would cause uncontrollable chaos for Prime Minister Starmer.
I hope its Johnson so the civil war in the party gets worse and they remain paralysed. The longer the psychodrama goes on the better for the country long term. Thats months of no effective government now
Well if by some miracle the Tories squeak another victory you'll only have yourself to thank Ernie. I'm not sure what sort of Labour party you want. Left economically, right wing culturally ? Bear in mind that not everyone will agree exactly with you, esp on cultural issues, so try to be tolerant of that.
I really don't get this
'In order for Labour to be effective, it needs to look at the mistakes of the past, its own included. And not make them again. And it needs to listen to all its members, and entertain a broad range of ideas. This is called learning. If Labour is unwilling to learn, it will be unfit to govern.'
It looks to me like the Labour party have done that, and the Conservatives have not, and thanks to how the party and voting system work have disappeared into a small tight hole. Note that in a broad church, with a broad range of ideas there will be some disagreement... how do you want to spin that?
I really don’t get this
I have explained it all previously.
It looks to me like the Labour party have done that
It doesn't look like it to me.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59910107
The current shadow health secretary's answer to the problems with the NHS is to further privatise it, basically. That does not fill me with optimism for a future under Labour. It's clear Streeting has learned nothing from the past, and is willing to repeat the same mistakes.
Well if by some miracle the Tories squeak another victory you’ll only have yourself to thank Ernie. I’m not sure what sort of Labour party you want. Left economically, right wing culturally ? Bear in mind that not everyone will agree exactly with you, esp on cultural issues, so try to be tolerant of that.
What a weird comment that gets weirder as it progresses.
Thanks for pointing it out but I was already aware that 'not everyone will agree exactly with me'.
And I don't have to "try" to be tolerant of "cultural issues" it comes quite naturally to me. For example back in August I attended the Hindu Janmashtami festival along with tens of thousands of Hindus, despite not being a Hindu myself, just to learn more about other people's cultures. I have also attended Buddhist religious services, visited a Sikh temple, a synagogue, been to a Taoist service, and once attended Friday prayers at my local mosque, among other things.
I have no idea what this has to do with who will be the next Prime Minister though.
Nor how I vote.
I reckon Boris is going to win this easy.
Piece of cake.
So is Penny going to pull out overnight and crown Sunak, or will she still try to reach 100+ backers?
If this goes to the members, I suspect she will get the nod.
troll ^^^
The new PM is one who serves those who control all major ‘world leaders’.
Well those who control all major ‘world leaders’ are gonna be proper pissed off when Rishi Sunak loses the next general election in that case.
No, wait, don't tell me....... they also control the leader of the Labour Party.
Am I right?
treatment of Corbyn
Corbyn was elected by a small minority of left wing party zealots, No different to Truss and no more representative of the electorate at large who also rejected Corbyn at a GE.
Political parties need to appeal (different from serve) the majority of the electorate, that's democracy for all its flaws.
govt serves the interests of all the people
Not possible, people have different interests which is where democracy comes in.
Anyway time this thread closed, we know whom the next PM is and likely to be for the next 2 years. Whatever else Sunak is he's not as tone deaf to the optics as Boris or Truss, she the pointed calls to the developed leaders in the first 2r hours. He's a lot less likely to male the obvious mistakes whilst quietly pushing his regressive policies through in the background.
left wing party zealots
Jesus. You mean people who want a fairer more just society where absolute poverty has been eradicated and the rich pay their fair share? f***** Zeolots! 🙄
Corbyn was elected by a small minority of left wing party zealots, No different to Truss
No the difference with Corbyn and Truss was that Truss was in govt. It's entirely up to political parties to elect who the hell they want, and then put that leader to the people in an election. The tories didn't do that. If you can't understand that distinction then you need to do some hard thinking.
You mean people who want a fairer more just society where absolute poverty has been eradicated and the rich pay their fair share?
Many people want that, not all agree on the way to achieve it, it's not a preserve of the far left. By their very nature party members tend to be at the extreme end of the political spectrum.
And yes many Corbyn supporters were zealots:
a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
More culture war warriors, the right doesn't have a monopoly on intolerant nut jobs that see the world through their blinkered outlook.
you need to do some hard thinking.
You like to tell other people how to think don't you.
difference with Corbyn and Truss was that Truss was in govt.
Fair point, Corbyn was democratically rejected by the electorate. The selection process for party leader was still the same though, parliamentary party decide on the candidates and the membership choose the Loony Tunes character.
You like to tell other people how to think don’t you.
Only when people say stupid things. 😉
Stupid is subjective so right back at you 😉😉😉😉😉
political parties undeniably serve the interests of a tiny elite.
You think that the Green Party, for example, serves the interests of a "tiny elite"?
The Labour Party is firmly in the grip of professional political careerists who have no intention of upsetting the apple cart and undermining the status quo with a radical alternative which challenges existing power and wealth.
The idea that they are part of some sort of global conspiracy is hogwash.
Corbyn was elected by a small minority of left wing party zealots
In what universe is 60% and 62% a "small minority"?
The Labour Party is firmly in the grip of professional political careerists who have no intention of upsetting the apple cart and undermining the status quo with a radical alternative which challenges existing power and wealth.
In fairness, this is because they want to be elected and they don't think they will be if the propose radical change. Democracy in action innit.
You think they acted as if they wanted to win a general election? They were devastated when in 2017 Labour increased its share of the vote to a level not seen for 16 years.
Some were perfectly open and honest, in public, about their opposition to a left-wing Labour government:
Is the thread now about who will replace sunak - or has this drifted off topic?
Is the thread now about who will replace sunak – or has this drifted off topic?
Strangely for this place, a political thread has drifted into the regular argument about Labour and Corbyn.
#theusualsuspects
Well the person most likely to replace Sunak is Starmer.
Which is how this thread got onto the subject of the Labour Party when I asked:
Well those who control all major ‘world leaders’ are gonna be proper pissed off when Rishi Sunak loses the next general election in that case.
No, wait, don’t tell me……. they also control the leader of the Labour Party.
Am I right?
I would be interested in another theory which suggests that the next Prime Minister won't be the Labour leader though....... anyone?
That's better.
It will be Starmer.
Time to close the thread.
I would be interested in another theory which suggests that the next Prime Minister won’t be the Labour leader though……. anyone?
Because it will all go off for Rishi come the spring and the Tories will insist on foisting another leader from their benches (that are apparently full of talent). Manifesto blah, blah.
That’s better.
It will be Starmer.
Time to close the thread.
I completely agree. If we could combine all the political threads into just one, the operational burden on Ernie having the have the last word on every chuffing thread would be greatly reduced.
😉
I think Starmer will not get that chance to be the next PM, unless he can come up with a better idea of solving the energy crisis without bankrupting the country.
The reason is that Starmer professional background does not allow him to be "creative". The current energy crisis requires a lot of high risk creative thinking, which no past experience (rules) will be able to deal with it.
As the American is trying to solve the energy crisis by demanding Saudi to increase oil production, which has not gone down well as MBS is not going to be dictated to anymore.
If Saudi does not play ball, which is happening now, the energy crisis will prolong.
The American threatening Saudi, which they have recently, will only see new world order emerging.
Saudi is the "King" maker now.
Any positive examples of tory 'creativity' chewkw?
As in good for society.
Covid vaccine strategy was science led; all johnson did was approve the strategy and open the money taps - any idiot could have done that.
Furlough? Developed by civil servants; either make money available or watch the economy crumble.
Migrants being exported to Rwanda; that was/is the intention but has stalled - ground to a halt in reality.
Brexit? That's working out well; Ha!
Jeapordise the NI peace agreement.
Enable farage/tice and others.
Creatively damage UK's financial reputation and credibility.
Your turn now.
Any positive examples of tory ‘creativity’ chewkw?
For the current energy crisis I seriously doubt they can do a lot but perhaps slightly better than Starmer, considering the opposition stance i.e. "we can do better than you".
At some point it will no longer matter who will be in govt if the energy crisis continues. All the past decisions etc will be minor by comparison.
Oh ya ... Starmer can have the PM job if he wishes I have no problem with that. Whether UK wants to rejoining EU etc (I don't) is not even important anymore other than temporary relieve. It will get harder before it gets better but for the moment UK is still slightly better than many EU nations.
I would be interested in another theory which suggests that the next Prime Minister won’t be the Labour leader though……. anyone?
I'd suggest no-one take it for granted.
without bankrupting the country.
The country can’t go bankrupt. It’s impossible. Do some reading.
The country can’t go bankrupt. It’s impossible. Do some reading.
As a matter of speech but more like very high inflation.
They are trying to use high interest rate to "cool" the market ... hhhmmm ...
The question is whether Murica is going to increase oil export to help out EU's energy crisis? Think they are going to look after themselves first. Also if they increase oil extraction it will not benefit their oil companies at all. But Murica being Murica is trying to sneakily seduce Venezuela to get them to increase oil production. It looks like the Murican petrol currency is going to face some challenging times ahead and with that the world will suffer. One wrong move and 70% of the world oil production will swing towards the other side and the new world order starts ...
Well, they wanted Biden and now they know what Biden administration is about.
chewkw - a dismal failure on your part being unable to provide any positive examples of the the tory 'creativity' you referred to above ^^^
Please do try again; stick to the subject - which you raised.
You have been referred so many times over many years by so many people as a troll - and mods haven't intervened as far as I know.
I see posts by veganrider which are unintelligible, david icke levels of bullshit and I refer to the poster as a troll; get an instant warning.
Compare'n'contrast; I see hypocrisy.
chewy isn't a troll...... he actually believes this stuff - he's not doing it just to get a rise out of people.
I see posts by veganrider which are unintelligible, david icke levels of bullshit and I refer to the poster as a troll; get an instant warning.
Really? Plenty of people have called him that, there's either a blanket warning going out or there's a different context.
I agree, I don't think chewy is a troll. He has a very different world view having been raised in a different culture, and doesn't always express himself clearly, I'd call him challenging rather than trolling.
Do some reading.
@dazh, without a reference for what to read, this sounds like condescending bluster, almost threatening in fact. The words of an ignorant bully, though in fact it does appear that you do know some stuff (whilst being ignorant of other stuff, just like the rest of us). Similarly "educate yourself" etc.
without a reference for what to read,
I’ve posted many references across many threads on this subject. I’m not going to do that every time someone repeats this nonsense as if it were fact. Besides it’s chewy, troll in chief and professional ignoramus.
chewkw – if only brant would tell us who you really are; he had some interaction with you when he was with PX/on one.
One thing has always been clear – you’re a troll, pretending to be a malay on tyneside.
Pull the other one hinny.
You’re not some fantastical creation from the mind of Leonard Barras; you’re not in the same caategory as Seppie Elphinstook, goalkeeper for Wallsend Amnesia FC.
You’re, at best, mildly amusing but only in extremely small doses.
What a clown.
Resorting to personal attacks like this, just because someone else has views you don't agree with, is quite nasty imo. By all means counter an argument with whatever facts or other information you have, but calling for someone's identity to be exposed on an internet forum is tantamount to bullying. There's a lot of judgment and labelling on this thread, but not a great deal of understanding. Have a word with yourselves, eh?
There's no conspiracy involved but all of the parliamentary parties are committed to a system where a tiny minority own and control the world's business and assets at the expense of everyone else. The parties do ague, however, over the size of the crumb(s) to be handed down. 'The markets' is a euphemism for simply following the dictats of international finance capital and is an attempt to absolve politicians from the blame for wrecking the lives of their electorate through transferring wealth from poor to rich aka austerity or 'balancing the books'. Politicians are recommended and promoted on how close they've been to the 'markets' (drilled in PPE at Oxford, worked for Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, was on the BoEMC etc).
I’ve posted many references across many threads on this subject.
So it should be easy to post references. Or, failing that, give your reasoning. You may think this approach is justified in the case of one forum member, but there are many voices here and your manner of posting discourages them from engaging with you on this topic.
Or, failing that, give your reasoning.
The country can't go bankrupt because it has a central bank that creates it's own money. That is all you need to know.
The Labour Party is firmly in the grip of professional political careerists
Alternative view… many on the front bench have had real careers outside politics, including the leader of the opposition and shadow chancellor. There are of course some that have always dedicated their lives to politics, such as the shadow home secretary, it is a party that attracts people who believe that through politics they can make a difference.
@dazh, more arrogance. Why should you determine what other people need to know?
Arrogance? Blimey monetary supply issues have been explained and discussed oon here enough times.
Why should you determine what other people need to know?
It's a simple fact. It's not up to me to determine what is a fact or not. A fact is a fact. If someone deliberately chooses to ignore a fact then they're being wilfully ignorant. That is also a fact.
It’s a simple fact. It’s not up to me to determine what is a fact or not. A fact is a fact. If someone deliberately chooses to ignore a fact then they’re being wilfully ignorant. That is also a fact.
Your statement:
The country can’t go bankrupt because it has a central bank that creates it’s own money. That is all you need to know.
is not a "simple fact". It is a fact (one might quibble with "simple" as a description of it) coupled with two conclusions that you appear to believe flow from it (being firstly, that the government cannot go bankrupt because of the fact and secondly, that the fact is all someone needs to know in order to satisfy themselves as to the first conclusion). All conclusions depend on assumptions, even your's @dazh. What are your assumptions?
is not a “simple fact”.
It is. A govt which creates it's own money cannot go bankrupt. You can choose to ignore that if you want, but it doesn't change that simple fact. The rest is just pointless pedantry.
A govt which creates it’s own money cannot go bankrupt
Remind us what happened in Zimbabwe?
A govt which creates it’s own money cannot go bankrupt.
This is news from other part of the world.
https://www.tbsnews.net/world/6-major-countries-went-bankrupt-recent-times-453426
https://www.tbsnews.net/thoughts/can-country-go-bankrupt-475846
Bankrupt is the "street term" but the technical term is default.
"Bankrupt" has a technical meaning - roughly "cannot pay its debts as they fall due"*. The street usage of it is probably a bit broader. Bankruptcy tends to happen before default (ie you have to wait for the debt to fall due before there is a default, although it was clear it could not be paid at some time before that.) But "bankruptcy" as a concept is linked to legal consequences that only apply to people and corporations within a country, so it doesn't appear to be used much for governments.
*"Insolvent" is an equivalent term, there may be technical differences.