Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...



BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,334
Whereas Penny Mordaunt, if elected as Tory leader, could employ her brother in child protection!
Another light hearted remark by me re the eccentric Covid denying Corbyn brother.
Alas, it has fallen on stony ground. Not a surprise on an NSC political thread.😊
 








Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Another light hearted remark by me re the eccentric Covid denying Corbyn brother.
Alas, it has fallen on stony ground. Not a surprise on an NSC political thread.😊
It was a dig and you know it. I didn’t like Jeremy Corbyn either, but I wouldn’t use his brother’s actions against him.
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Yes, of course Johnson and the Government made mistakes, but to say he ignored all the advice he was given is wrong.
Missing three Cobra meetings by the Prime Minister is evidence of ignoring advice.
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham
Indeed, I have no time for Johnson, but whilst he was mainly engaged in writing newspaper columns, I didn’t take much notice of him. As London Mayor, he ap to spaffed cash on some vanity projects that bit the dust, but he was probably no more harmful than Ken Livingstone or Sadiq Khan, the latter mentioned, I cannot stand.
Yes, he is a high grade ****, on that we can agree.
I'm not sure any of the London Mayors have been harmful, even Johnson. When push comes to shove they have neither the budget nor powers to do anything too daft. Boris never built his (whatever it was - massive bridge with a park on it? Or was that Khan?).

In the annoying but largely trivial arena, none of them have declared London a nuclear free zone (again), made anti-Semitic remarks (while still mayor) or taken credit* for a bike scheme that was created (though not quite implemented) by his predecessor.

*Oh, hang on. As you were. :facepalm:
 


BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,334
I'm not sure any of the London Mayors have been harmful, even Johnson. When push comes to shove they have neither the budget nor powers to do anything too daft. Boris never built his (whatever it was - massive bridge with a park on it? Or was that Khan?).

In the annoying but largely trivial arena, none of them have declared London a nuclear free zone (again), made anti-Semitic remarks (while still mayor) or taken credit* for a bike scheme that was created (though not quite implemented) by his predecessor.

*Oh, hang on. As you were. :facepalm:
Well, Khan upset a few, including Starmer I believe, with his ULEZ extension. Probably ok with some of the Lefty Metropolitan sort, but a bit of a blow to those who cannot afford compliant vehicles and have to travel into those areas for work.
Yes, I know the arguments in favour, and in an ideal world everyone wants less pollution, but was this a fair decision?
The fancy bridge garden thingy was a Johnson fantasy, I think.
 
Last edited:


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
I'm not sure any of the London Mayors have been harmful, even Johnson. When push comes to shove they have neither the budget nor powers to do anything too daft. Boris never built his (whatever it was - massive bridge with a park on it? Or was that Khan?).

In the annoying but largely trivial arena, none of them have declared London a nuclear free zone (again), made anti-Semitic remarks (while still mayor) or taken credit* for a bike scheme that was created (though not quite implemented) by his predecessor.

*Oh, hang on. As you were. :facepalm:
Johnson closing 10 fire stations and losing 552 firefighter, selling off the land was pretty harmful, especially when Grenfell happened three years later.

 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Well, Khan upset a few, including Starmer I believe, with his ULEZ extension. Probably ok with the Lefty Metropolitan sort, but a bit of a blow to those who cannot afford compliant vehicles and have to travel into those areas for work.
The bridge was Johnson’s thing.
90% of all vehicles are exempt, Johnson started ULEZ and Khan extended it.
After all, who wants to breathe clean air?
 


BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,334
90% of all vehicles are exempt, Johnson started ULEZ and Khan extended it.
After all, who wants to breathe clean air?
I know and I have edited my remark. Of course everyone wants clean air, but I am merely asking was this a fair decision? A number of councils thought not and objected. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I just wanted to put it out there as an example of a controversial act by the London Mayor.
 










Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham
Well, Khan upset a few, including Starmer I believe, with his ULEZ extension. Probably ok with some of the Lefty Metropolitan sort, but a bit of a blow to those who cannot afford compliant vehicles and have to travel into those areas for work.
Yes, I know the arguments in favour, and in an ideal world everyone wants less pollution, but was this a fair decision?
The fancy bridge garden thingy was a Johnson fantasy, I think.
Oh I remember that. I don't have much sympathy with the smoke belchers. This was all signaled years ago, and discussed to death on NSC. It's no good them all acting like Arthur Dent when the Vogons came to demolish the Earth.

Like with much radical change, people initially squeel about it not being fair. Drink driving laws, seatbelts....its largely the same sorts moaning about ULEZ. Interestingly the plan was originally introduced by Johnson (I applaud it - see me clapping) and has been extended outwards in stages. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone)

Headlines like these (below) would just make me want to vote for Khan:

1701110473808.png
1701110545213.png
 




Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham
I know and I have edited my remark. Of course everyone wants clean air, but I am merely asking was this a fair decision? A number of councils thought not and objected. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I just wanted to put it out there as an example of a controversial act by the London Mayor.
You seem to think that fairness (if not yer actual 'right and wrong') is defined by the opinion of one council. Perhaps you're right. The council after all is democratically elected and can speak for its council tax payers. That said, it is a council, not an autonomous entity like Rotherweird or Narnia. There are other organizations of government above it, and it does not have much if any say in matters that affect the wider community. We can all understand that.

I remember the 1981 'fairs fare' scheme introduced by the GLC in the early 90s. My weekly tube fair from Edgware to Tottenham Court Road was halved. Then one council among the many in the GLC said 'this is not fair'. This council went to court over it because they don't have a tube station (their overground is now part of TFL of course, but it wasn't then). Yes it was Bromley. A high court Judge (one of the wankers who banged up the non-IRA non-terrorists I think it was) ruled in favour of Bromley, and my tube fare was more than doubled. The democratic vote of most of the rest of us who elected the labour GLC was ignored. Fair?

Given that the 1981 plan was brought in by Labour (Livingstone in fact) whereas Bromley is True Blue, the whole thing was a political stitch up. As we know, the Labour GLC was such an existential threat to Thatcher she abolished it. Was that fair? Not bloody likely.

So is it fair for Hillingdon or whoever it is to demand removal of a scheme introduced by the elected Mayor? I think not.

Not everyone always gets everything they want.

I just checked what thread this is. It is 'tory meltdown'. I'd persuaded myself it had to be 'That Labour Khan bloke, isn't he rubbish?!'. :lolol: :thumbsup:

You're doing a decent job of seeking some 'balance' to the narrative in a tory-hostile moment in time, and being fair and courteous about it but, if we view the discussion as a civilized boxing match I wouldn't say you've landed any punches yet.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,766
Interestingly enough I watched this documentary on catch up last night



The clean air act that came in 4 years later caused great financial hardship, but what was the alternative :shrug:

But, of course, it's different this time :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:


BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,334
I don’t need Google. My son is a firefighter.
Your
Johnson closing 10 fire stations and losing 552 firefighter, selling off the land was pretty harmful, especially when Grenfell happened three years later.

Your quote re the closing of 10 fire stations and the loss of 552 firefighters together with the mention of Grenfell smacks of conflation to me.
Your son being a firefighter will no doubt be aware of the main causes of the Grenfell tragedy. As far as I am aware, the closure of fire stations and the loss of the jobs you mention , were not instrumental in the loss of life. I have done some Googling myself on this one and there is a pretty comprehensive summary on Wikipedia.
Way past my time to retire and watch some telly, so I shall not be replying for much longer. However, it is good to have an exchange of views!😁👍
 




BLOCK F

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
6,334
Oh I remember that. I don't have much sympathy with the smoke belchers. This was all signaled years ago, and discussed to death on NSC. It's no good them all acting like Arthur Dent when the Vogons came to demolish the Earth.

Like with much radical change, people initially squeel about it not being fair. Drink driving laws, seatbelts....its largely the same sorts moaning about ULEZ. Interestingly the plan was originally introduced by Johnson (I applaud it - see me clapping) and has been extended outwards in stages. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone)

Headlines like these (below) would just make me want to vote for Khan:

View attachment 170346View attachment 170347
Harry,
You would surely never expose yourself to such headlines from disreputable organisations as the Express and GB NEWS, any more than I would!
No need to sensationalise your posts, just say what you mean , like you usually do😁👍
I take your point re radical change and squealing, but it is always so much easier to accept change , when it doesn’t cost / affect one personally , rather like the approach of the British electorate and suggested tax increases etc.
 


Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
49,845
Faversham
Harry,
You would surely never expose yourself to such headlines from disreputable organisations as the Express and GB NEWS, any more than I would!
No need to sensationalise your posts, just say what you mean , like you usually do😁👍
I take your point re radical change and squealing, but it is always so much easier to accept change , when it doesn’t cost / affect one personally , rather like the approach of the British electorate and suggested tax increases etc.
Apologies. I gave three lectures today and an still caught up in the intoxicating octane of my own hubris :LOL:
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here