Politics The General Election 2015

[DaGaffer]

You simply can't spend enough money to stop once in a century events. Not if you want to have an NHS, a Police Force and roads. Even if you did, there's always the once in 200 year event.

That's the problem though, it's not a once in a century event anymore; its once every 3-5 years and reducing.

 

[caLLous]

That's also the problem though, they could spend billions on defense systems and then not have any serious flooding for the next x decades.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's also the problem though, they could spend billions on defense systems and then not have any serious flooding for the next x decades.

Oh come off it, even if Climate Change wasn't reality, the way flood plains have been built on and runoff has been messed up means that floods are more likely. This is just reaping the results of a century of bad planning.

 

[Talivar]

I wonder if anyone here actually lives in or close to areas being hit by the floods so we can get their views

 

[Gwadien]

So why don't we build long-term defence structures?

Why is everything that we do built to last less than 50 years?

I mean, EVERYTHING.

It's so retarded, it's about we invest into something as a nation, something that we can be proud of and use for generations, not just short-term gain.

 

[Raven]

Or...and I know it might sound mad...we could just stop building on flood planes?

 

[Ormorof]

Water has to go somewhere, flood defences too often just kick the problem to someone elses budget

Wonder how many times you have to get flooded before your property necomes uninsurable

 

[DaGaffer]

Water has to go somewhere, flood defences too often just kick the problem to someone elses budget

Wonder how many times you have to get flooded before your property necomes uninsurable

In Ireland, once. And the problem is, at the moment, even if there are flood defences put in place subsequently, there's no compulsion on the insurance industry to reassess your house.

 

[Scouse]

If we stopped fucking our moorland over for stuff like grouse shooting we'd go a long way towards ameliorating the need for flood defences...

 

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35220413

Bit early isn't it Jeremy? Removing dissenters...

The left showing their true colours again, wouldn't want debate on issues now would we!

The clown out politiced again by Cameron, who is allowing free debate and voting on EU membership.

 

[Talivar]

You do realise that Cameron uses the whip to ensure his whole party votes with him? This has been admitted and is no secret. Last time it happened was the recent Syria vote

 

[Raven]

Yeah but no.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35230959

Also, its worth noting, if they were to use the whip then all the Tories would have to vote to stay in.

 

[Talivar]

Lets wait and see how they actually all vote first? He says a lot of things and does not stick to them so i will judge actions not words

 

[Talivar]

Also the media can twist anything to seem like something else
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...its_n_8915428.html?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

 

[Bodhi]

Also the media can twist anything to seem like something else
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...its_n_8915428.html?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

And you're using the Huffington Post as an a voice of reason in all this? Lol....

The man is an arse, frankly. Give your party a free vote then make them sweat for a while if they dare to vote against you, must be the kinder politics in action!

Doubly ironic given Steptoe's record of voting against the whip when he was a backbencher.....

 

[Raven]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35239232

Bahahaha.

Time for a reshuffle.

 

[Scouse]

Bahahaha.

Reshuffles happen all the time. The only reason there's a focus on Labour is that there are a lot of butthurt idiots in the parliamentary party who don't like the fact that a leftie's been democratically elected and are toys>pramming.

I'd have shuffled in the same way myself tbh. (To be fair, I'd never have put Eagles in her position in the first place). The ones who have resigned are better on the backbenches anyway.

Seems to be an overly touchy press microscope on Labour at the moment that shows no sign of abating...

 

[Raven]

Again. Point, missed.

He had a reshuffle, 3 people quit, sooo er...time for a reshuffle.

 

[Scouse]

Not really. Just time for a few easy appointments of people who won't undermine you.

 

[Raven]

So you believe that government or party policy should be down to one man...rather than the voice of the constituents?

 

[Scouse]

Of course not. Last time I looked, however, the Tories were much more guilty of that than Labour - who's members overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn. Also, notice that he didn't sack them - they resigned.


So, after my direct answer to your question, care to answer my direct questions in the asylum thread? Or are you afraid of people finding out how you feel?

 

[Raven]

Oh, so he didn't remove several high profile dissenters then?!

 

[Wij]

Of course not. Last time I looked, however, the Tories were much more guilty of that than Labour - who's members overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn. Also, notice that he didn't sack them - they resigned.


So, after my direct answer to your question, care to answer my direct questions in the asylum thread? Or are you afraid of people finding out how you feel?

McDonnell was an arse on Today yesterday morning insisting that Hilary Benn had agreed that even if there was a free vote on something in the future then Benn would only be able to oppose his leader from the back benches. Which you'll note is less free party-wise than the Tories on the EU referendum. Benn then immediately said that it was bollocks and that he hadn't made any such agreement.

To be honest McDonnell just sounded like he was making it up on the spot.

 

[Scouse]

To be honest McDonnell just sounded like he was making it up on the spot.

I think they all are tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Oh, so he didn't remove several high profile dissenters then?!

1) Hilary Benn? 2) Eagle moved to Culture secretary? 3) So what? That's the point of a reshuffle?

 

[Wij]

It's worth juxtaposing these two things a few times though:

Ken Livingstone.

Defence Review.

Ken Livingstone.

Defence Review.

Ken Livingstone.

Defence Review.

 

[Scouse]

It does make me laugh @Wij, but then I'm one of these loonies that would never lob a nuclear weapon because I wouldn't murder a million innocents just because they live in a country run by some despot who would willingly murder us...

 

[Bodhi]

You'd either have to be a bit of a retard or a raving leftie to see Corbyn's reshuffle as anything other than a Clusterfuck of epic proportions. Sacking someone for daring to suggest that terrorists really shouldn't be blowing people up, putting someone in charge of defence who has received multiple thousands of pounds from the dodgy lawyers who started bringing charges against our Armed Forces for no apparent reason (and was also sacked from Milliband's government) and taking about 3 days to do it. Also great timing putting a unilateralist in charge of defence, just as NK test another nuke.

The people who resigned were well respected members of the Labour party (respected by all parties) and good working class people, they appear to have been replaced by Corbyn's mates from Islington who wouldn't know working class people if they served them their quinoa.

Corbyn is an absolute fucking joke and is the reason Labour are currently doing so badly in the polls. Last one I saw Corbyn's leadership ratings were lower than Clegg's before the GE - not really a claim to fame.

But that's OK because a bunch of Trotskyists, Green Party members and mischievous Tories voted for him!

 

[Scouse]

I'm not disagreeing with much of your post but this:

Sacking someone for daring to suggest that terrorists really shouldn't be blowing people up

is a crock of shit.

He was sacked because he span the tory line. Corbyn's position is that the causes of terrorism are more complex than the tories put out - a position I've held for years. It doesn't make me an apologist for terrorists - it makes the tories blinkered and simplistic arseholes who aren't trying to understand the root causes of the problem.

Stupid humans want simple explanations and simple solutions and never want to look at their own contribution to problems...

 

[Bodhi]

I'm not disagreeing with much of your post but this:

is a crock of shit.

He was sacked because he span the tory line. Corbyn's position is that the causes of terrorism are more complex than the tories put out - a position I've held for years. It doesn't make me an apologist for terrorists - it makes the tories blinkered and simplistic arseholes who aren't trying to understand the root causes of the problem.

Stupid humans want simple explanations and simple solutions and never want to look at their own contribution to problems...

No, I've seen your posts on various terrorist threads - especially the Charlie Hebdo one. I'd definitely say you were an apologist, the biggest one I know, frankly.

So I'm not surprised you're a fan of the "Our Freinds from Hamas" and "The IRA - Were they All bad?" who are trying (and failing very badly) to provide oppostion to our government.