Not The Politics Thread.

[Sampson]

40 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Lets be honest. Boris is awful, but Starmer and his predecessor have been so inept that they haven't even been able to make in-roads against him in spite of all the cronyism, all the u-turns and all the out right balls ups. The state of politics in this country is laughable. It's atrocious. No-one is offering anything of any substance what-so-ever, people are just voting for the least worst option. 

Just announced that council tax bills will go up by £500 a year while the taxes for the wealthiest aren't even going up to match those in France Germany or Italy.

 

What exactly is so "inept" about Labour that there plans to increase tax on the wealthy by 5% to put us in line with the rest of the major economies in Western Europe, while the Tories squeeze the poorest families more and more?

 

The only answer we ever seem to get about Labour being inept is that they care about transgender people and apparently people want to rant against Labour for doing that than rant against the Tories for bleeding them bone dry while the wealthiest 5% aren't getting any tax rises at all.

Edited 1 October 2021 by Sampson

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Just announced that council tax bills will go up by £500 a year while the taxes for the wealthiest aren't even going up to match those in France Germany or Italy.

 

What exactly is so "inept" about Labour that there plans to increase tax on the wealthy by 5% to put us in line with the rest of the major economies in Western Europe, while the Tories squeeze the poorest families more and more?

 

The only answer we ever seem to get about Labour being inept is that they care about transgender people and apparently people want to rant against Labour for doing that than rant against the Tories for bleeding them bone dry while the wealthiest 5% aren't getting any tax rises at all.

Confucius say if politician make sensible policy announcement and unregulated press baron doesn't tell readers about it, politician has said nothing of substance whatsoever.

[Claridge]

Just watched the film official secrets if anyone want to know about living under the last labour government.

im old enough to remember living under labour in the 70s.

personlly that’s why it would take more than a drip like Keir to persuade me to vote labour.

Edited 1 October 2021 by Claridge

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Just watched the film official secrets if anyone want to know about living under the last labour government.

im old enough to remember living under labour in the 70s.

personlly that’s why it would take more than a drip like Keir to persuade me to vote labour.

Im confused?

 

So now you admit you actively dislike 

"the red wall" and the traditional Labour voter then? When you just admitted you hated the traditional Labour Party and what the traditional Labour stands for?

 

Only yesterday you wanted Labour to go back to the 70s and re-appeal to thar voter again?

 

And now you won't vote for the current Labour Party because of what the traditional Labour Party did, when yesterday you wanted the traditional Labour Party back?

 

I guess that makes sense then if you only want that so Labour stay put of power.

Edited 1 October 2021 by Sampson

[MustardTiger]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Just announced that council tax bills will go up by £500 a year while the taxes for the wealthiest aren't even going up to match those in France Germany or Italy.

"Council tax could have to rise by almost £500 in the next three years if the government does not act over social care, town hall chiefs warn."

"COUNCIL tax bills will need to rocket by nearly £500 a year to fill an £8 billion blackhole in social care, Town Hall chiefs warn today."

 

Could have to rise..

Will need to... Town Hall cheifs warn..

 

Not announced exactly. Nothing on tomorrows front pages, nothing on BBC news for such a done deal.

 

I know from lurking on here enough usually you fellas scoff at linking sources like the mail.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

Where was this cavalier attitude towards what the papers report back when they were covering red buses and warnings of migrant caravans, the subjects of which have both failed to materialise?  Curious.

[enmac]

Shocking. 

[doverfox]

 

I cant believe council tax will rise when was the last time that happened ? Wasnt last year was it?

 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, enmac said:

Shocking. 

Not at all shocking, we're already well aware he's happy to see the bodies pile high for the sake of capitalism.  I guess this is the sacrifice everyone was saying they'd be happy with to get Brexit?  Foolishly I thought they meant taking an economic hit, not letting their fellows die.

[Claridge]

8 hours ago, Sampson said:

Im confused?

 

So now you admit you actively dislike 

"the red wall" and the traditional Labour voter then? When you just admitted you hated the traditional Labour Party and what the traditional Labour stands for?

 

Only yesterday you wanted Labour to go back to the 70s and re-appeal to thar voter again?

 

And now you won't vote for the current Labour Party because of what the traditional Labour Party did, when yesterday you wanted the traditional Labour Party back?

 

I guess that makes sense then if you only want that so Labour stay put of power.

I don’t hate the traditional Labour Party , hate the fact it’s been high jacked by middle class wokeys. The working class haven’t abandoned labour, labour have abandoned them.They were useless in the 70s with and most on the left couldn’t stand the EU. Electing a decent leader would help, or getting rid of them earlier, when it’s fairly obvious they can’t win. The tories will dump Boris if(as could easily happen) he looks like losing, but labour will stick with Keir and then whine about the tories and imagine everyone should love there PC views and end up losing again

Edited 2 October 2021 by Claridge

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 hours ago, Sampson said:

Just announced that council tax bills will go up by £500 a year while the taxes for the wealthiest aren't even going up to match those in France Germany or Italy.

 

What exactly is so "inept" about Labour that there plans to increase tax on the wealthy by 5% to put us in line with the rest of the major economies in Western Europe, while the Tories squeeze the poorest families more and more?

 

The only answer we ever seem to get about Labour being inept is that they care about transgender people and apparently people want to rant against Labour for doing that than rant against the Tories for bleeding them bone dry while the wealthiest 5% aren't getting any tax rises at all.

You know when you respond to people, it helps to respond to what they actually say rather than imagine what they say to make your response easier.

“Boris is awful” - a statement you patently agree with so you must surely agree that Labour is ‘inept’ if they’re not able to make consistent meaningful inroads. Which is what was said.

 

Maybe it’s because Labour’s failures are never endogenous, always exogenous, presumably the ineptitude is actually the voters continuing to be manipulated by the Conservatives, the media, rich people, racists, transphobes or whoever else is always responsible for manipulating them so they choose the miserable valleys rather than the sunlit uplands?

You have spent the last couple of weeks having a paddy at how bad the government is and anyone who isn’t desperate for the alternative. Maybe a bit reflection as to why that might actually be would serve you better. The last week has thrown up a whole host of obvious reasons why, whether valid in one’s personal opinion or not.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

17 hours ago, ajthefox said:

people are just voting for the least worst option. 

I suspect that's often been the case.

[Claridge]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

You know when you respond to people, it helps to respond to what they actually say rather than imagine what they say to make your response easier.

“Boris is awful” - a statement you patently agree with so you must surely agree that Labour is ‘inept’ if they’re not able to make consistent meaningful inroads. Which is what was said.

 

Maybe it’s because Labour’s failures are never endogenous, always exogenous, presumably the ineptitude is actually the voters continuing to be manipulated by the Conservatives, the media, rich people, racists, transphobes or whoever else is always responsible for manipulating them so they choose the miserable valleys rather than the sunlit uplands?

You have spent the last couple of weeks having a paddy at how bad the government is and anyone who isn’t desperate for the alternative. Maybe a bit reflection as to why that might actually be would serve you better. The last week has thrown up a whole host of obvious reasons why, whether valid in one’s personal opinion or not.

This has been the case for years on here . There were all the same paddys when Corbyn was the leader and a lot like the labour party they always seem to know best what people should think

[doverfox]

Capitalism means the lack of drivers /staff isnt the governments problem or as some would suggest the prime ministers but that of the chairmen of the companies who dont have enough staff and just saying its because we arent allowing low paid labour to enter the job market pretty much goes against everything labour and the unions should be fighting for. 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, doverfox said:

Capitalism means the lack of drivers /staff isnt the governments problem or as some would suggest the prime ministers but that of the chairmen of the companies who dont have enough staff and just saying its because we arent allowing low paid labour to enter the job market pretty much goes against everything labour and the unions should be fighting for. 

[RobHawk]

Just reading about the looming deadline for care staff to have the jab and the quote from javid saying for staff to "get the jab or get a new job". 

 

I understand that these people are working with some of the most vulnerable in society and that it's a matter of trying to protect them. 

 

What I don't understand is, if this was the primary driver, surely javid would have included NHS staff too.

 

I wonder if it's because if the NHS is struggling for staff it's his problem, whereas if care homes are struggling that's their problem. 

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

Just reading about the looming deadline for care staff to have the jab and the quote from javid saying for staff to "get the jab or get a new job". 

 

I understand that these people are working with some of the most vulnerable in society and that it's a matter of trying to protect them. 

 

What I don't understand is, if this was the primary driver, surely javid would have included NHS staff too.

 

I wonder if it's because if the NHS is struggling for staff it's his problem, whereas if care homes are struggling that's their problem. 

 

It's a farce, in an industry that is already severely understaffed and in crisis.

 

Mrs B's care home will lose some 20 staff because of it, with little hope of replacing them, yet resdents' families and outside agencies can all visit without needing to have been vaccinated.

[Innovindil]

26 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's a farce, in an industry that is already severely understaffed and in crisis.

 

Mrs B's care home will lose some 20 staff because of it, with little hope of replacing them, yet resdents' families and outside agencies can all visit without needing to have been vaccinated.

Honestly don't agree with the no jab no job policy at all. It seems stupid to try and force people into it, even if I personally want everyone to get the jab.

 

Only hope is hopefully it goes along the same lines as the USA's healthworker policy, they found a lot of the people who originally refused to get the jab went and got it before the deadline was up. Most of the hospital associations have been reporting a 98-99% takeup.

[WigstonWanderer]

In the fullness of time, as the virus becomes completely endemic (as largely seems to be the case in the UK, and will soon be so here in Australia), everyone will be exposed to it and attain whatever immunity is on offer, either by vaccination, actually catching the disease, or maybe through some sort of natural immunity. The issue is getting through to that state of equilibrium without overloading health services.

 

The problem with the unvaccinated is that

 

a) They are more likely to pass on the virus and so will increase peaks of the local epidemic.

b) They are more likely to end up in hospital and clog up ICUs.

 

These two factors combine to put pressure on health services at the expense of not just other Covid patients, but of other hospital patients generally.

 

Probably a controversial view, and not something that I would think would actually be put into effect, but personally I’d be in favour of using vaccination status as one of the factors that is taken into account when triaging Covid patents for hospital services when such services need to be rationed.

Edited 2 October 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[StanSP]

Actual words from our Prime Minister... 

 

 

[Buce]

50 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Actual words from our Prime Minister... 

 

 

 

I think this belongs in the Absolute Cvnts thread.

 

What an absolutely vile man.

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Actual words from our Prime Minister... 

 

 

What’s the context around this though? I ask genuinely not knowing what’s said around it but I note that this is a snippet.

 

For instance: If his point around this is that stats for life expectancy and cancer outcomes will be temporarily down due to the pandemic, but that wage growth indicates improving fortunes that will then lead to upturns in the above two due to coming out of the pandemic, then he probably has a point.

 

If he’s saying “Wage growth is more important in general” then of course it’s horrible. But this clip has been cut, and the impression I get is that it’s rather deliberately so. Feel free to prove me wrong if someone has a longer one with more context.

Edited 2 October 2021 by Dunge

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Dunge said:

What’s the context around this though? I ask genuinely not knowing what’s said around it but I note that this is a snippet.

 

For instance: If his point around this is that stats for life expectancy and cancer outcomes will be temporarily down due to the pandemic, but that wage growth indicates improving fortunes that will then lead to upturns in the above two due to coming out of the pandemic, then he probably has a point.

 

If he’s saying “Wage growth is more important in general” then of course it’s horrible. But this clip has been cut, and the impression I get is that it’s rather deliberately so. Feel free to prove me wrong if someone has a longer one with more context.

 

In a BBC interview on Friday before the Conservative party conference, the prime minister was challenged that there was no measure for determining whether those who were more deprived were really catching up with those who were better off under the policy.

Johnson replied: “I’ve given you the most important metric – never mind life expectancy, never mind cancer outcomes – look at wage growth.

“Wage growth is now being experienced faster by those on lower incomes. It hasn’t happened for 10 years or more. That is what I mean by levelling up.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/02/boris-johnson-has-chilling-disinterest-in-levelling-up-health-says-labour

Edited 2 October 2021 by Buce

[Sampson]

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

You know when you respond to people, it helps to respond to what they actually say rather than imagine what they say to make your response easier.

“Boris is awful” - a statement you patently agree with so you must surely agree that Labour is ‘inept’ if they’re not able to make consistent meaningful inroads. Which is what was said.

 

Maybe it’s because Labour’s failures are never endogenous, always exogenous, presumably the ineptitude is actually the voters continuing to be manipulated by the Conservatives, the media, rich people, racists, transphobes or whoever else is always responsible for manipulating them so they choose the miserable valleys rather than the sunlit uplands?

You have spent the last couple of weeks having a paddy at how bad the government is and anyone who isn’t desperate for the alternative. Maybe a bit reflection as to why that might actually be would serve you better. The last week has thrown up a whole host of obvious reasons why, whether valid in one’s personal opinion or not.

No. I *am* trying to understand and reflect on why this is but we're never given a meaningful answer.

 

I would genuinely and earnestly like to know why swing voters are still set on voting Tories (not talking about self-confessed staunch Tory voters at every election like Claridge and I am Rod Hull which is fair enough but they aren't going to swing elections, but people who genuinely change their votes) and still think they're the better alternative. People say "because there's no alternative" but then never expand on that. Or give some very wishy washy answer about how other voters (but obviously not them) don't like the fact they're talking about transgender rights.

 

Yeah OK, if you believe those failings are  exogenous then I genuinely want you to spell our what they are and why they are bad enough to overrule the Conservative failings that even many Tories admit they have when they say they only vote Tory because to them the alternative is even worse.

 

You're right sometimes it gets unnecessary short and I apologise but it's because we never get the answers we ask for when we ask for what makes Labour absolutely not an alternative for a swing voter right now, we just get ignored or get laughing emojis or some very unconcrete post about how people don't like them talking about things like transgender rights (when yougov pills show that more people actually do want transgender rights than don't). After a while it just feels like they're saying "Labour are a worse alternative" because they've had it drummed it into them without even expanding on why and it gets tiresome.

 

So I'd genuinely and earnestly like to hear from swing voters with concrete reasons as to why they're still planning on voting Tory over Labour right now.

[Dunge]

19 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

In a BBC interview on Friday before the Conservative party conference, the prime minister was challenged that there was no measure for determining whether those who were more deprived were really catching up with those who were better off under the policy.

Johnson replied: “I’ve given you the most important metric – never mind life expectancy, never mind cancer outcomes – look at wage growth.

“Wage growth is now being experienced faster by those on lower incomes. It hasn’t happened for 10 years or more. That is what I mean by levelling up.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/02/boris-johnson-has-chilling-disinterest-in-levelling-up-health-says-labour

Probably about half way then. ie He’s wrong to dismiss health outcomes so glibly in his usual way, but they would be expected to follow wage growth.

 

I think the context here is that he’s talking about how to measure his levelling up stuff. I don’t think it’s as bad as the clip is designed to make it look - essentially trying to imply that he’s saying “never mind health; think about the money”.