Also In The News - part 3

[filbertway]

10 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

What if you're ****ing fed up with the crazy extremists on both sides and just want decent public services, a low cost of living and a decent way of life?

 

Sounds like something right out the mouth of Hitler 

[Dunge]

57 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I think if you aren't left wing then you are right wing.

 

Being left wing to me means you want to dismantle or reform the current structures of power. 

 

Being right wing means you want to keep the status quo. Someone like Johnson would be a good example.

 

It's somewhat interesting to me that post 1945 we've adopted this definition of left vs right that presents a spectrum between communism and fascism.

 

But it's a fantastic bit of manoeuvring because what would have been 'right-wing' is now basically in the centre.

I’m centrist. 

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

What if you're ****ing fed up with the crazy extremists on both sides and just want decent public services, a low cost of living and a decent way of life?

Normal.

[Spiritwalker]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

What if you're ****ing fed up with the crazy extremists on both sides and just want decent public services, a low cost of living and a decent way of life?

Have you ever thought of moving to Rwanda?

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I think if you aren't left wing then you are right wing.

 

Being left wing to me means you want to dismantle or reform the current structures of power. 

 

Being right wing means you want to keep the status quo. Someone like Johnson would be a good example.

 

It's somewhat interesting to me that post 1945 we've adopted this definition of left vs right that presents a spectrum between communism and fascism.

 

But it's a fantastic bit of manoeuvring because what would have been 'right-wing' is now basically in the centre.

I think we have had centrist-rights governments, just with different flavours since 1979. I really don’t think Corbynism would’ve worked BUT a redistribution of the wealth built up in society is a MUST now. The gap between have and have nots is insanely large and the most effective thing governments have done since 1979 is to convince people that inequality is something that you should accept for democracy (through telling people that there’s always a chance they could work hard to get rich). 

[LiberalFox]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

That's very "if you're not with us you're against us" rhetoric and doesn't often win support. 

That's probably why I don't take part in national politics (apart from voting).

 

I realised that my views just aren't particularly popular. 

 

If we get a truly left wing government in this country it will be because the status quo has become unbearable or we go through a collective trauma as a nation such that people aren't willing to just go back to how things were. 

 

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

Have you ever thought of moving to Rwanda?

I have actually considered writing to my MP an and asking to be deported. 

[dsr-burnley]

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

What if you're ****ing fed up with the crazy extremists on both sides and just want decent public services, a low cost of living and a decent way of life?

The problem is that both the Tories and Labour (and the Liberals and SNP, for that matter) all believe in high tax, high spend, sort of government that is incompatible with a low cost of living.  Truss's theory that the economy needs to grow was bang on (even though her way of achieving it was miles off target).  The current lot haven't got a plan for growing the economy, and as long as the economy doesn't grow but the population increases and the number of people paid to do nothing increases, then the cost of living will only go up.

[Lionator]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem is that both the Tories and Labour (and the Liberals and SNP, for that matter) all believe in high tax, high spend, sort of government that is incompatible with a low cost of living.  Truss's theory that the economy needs to grow was bang on (even though her way of achieving it was miles off target).  The current lot haven't got a plan for growing the economy, and as long as the economy doesn't grow but the population increases and the number of people paid to do nothing increases, then the cost of living will only go up.

I would argue politely that this current government do not believe in high spending. The complete lack of spending on our national infrastructure over the past 15 years is one of the reasons why the economy is stagnant. We build nothing. 

[Daggers]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Sunak enters the “Find Out” phase…

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Driver calls 999 to report himself for drink-driving in Knaresborough https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-68281661

 

He must really hate doing the school and kids activities runs 

Edited 13 February by Mike Oxlong

[Greg2607]

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem is that both the Tories and Labour (and the Liberals and SNP, for that matter) all believe in high tax, high spend, sort of government that is incompatible with a low cost of living.  Truss's theory that the economy needs to grow was bang on (even though her way of achieving it was miles off target).  The current lot haven't got a plan for growing the economy, and as long as the economy doesn't grow but the population increases and the number of people paid to do nothing increases, then the cost of living will only go up.

the problem, is that we've been led to believe for years, that someone on £25,000 and someone on £125,000 are pitched against each other.... when the reality, is that essentially, they are both in the same boat. (admittedly, with very different lifestyles and disposable incomes)  NEITHER of them are earning enough to be "Rich".... it's the people with earnings in the millions and wealth at eye watering proportions that are hoarding the money across society. 

 

Take Sunak as an example...........  he is "worth" £730m........  we should tax his total wealth at 2% a year...... it would provide £15m of taxes into the coffers........... BUT because of the way rich people invest, it's highly likely that his £730m is growing at least 4% a year.... so his wealth still goes up... next year he's worth £745m, but he's paid £15m back into the system whilst increasing his wealth.  do this across everyone that is "super rich" (anything above £10m) and I think you'd see we would have plenty of money to improve the country. 

 

I promise you, it isn't the Surgeons, Managing Directors, CFO's or Sales Directors that are the root cause of inequality across society.  

 

There are 10,000 people in the UK worth more than £20m....... tax their wealth at 2% and it provides a minimum of £4bn a year in tax income.... 

Edited 13 February by Greg2607

[worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

the problem, is that we've been led to believe for years, that someone on £25,000 and someone on £125,000 are pitched against each other.... when the reality, is that essentially, they are both in the same boat. (admittedly, with very different lifestyles and disposable incomes)  NEITHER of them are earning enough to be "Rich".... it's the people with earnings in the millions and wealth at eye watering proportions that are hoarding the money across society. 

 

 

I understand the point you're trying to make ... but I think you might find that people on very low incomes would consider £125k a year to be rich beyond their wildest dreams. 

 

And I don't think they are in the same boat ... unless some rather poor parts of the country have suddenly morphed into leafy Surrey suburbia, when I wasn't looking!

 

[Greg2607]

Just now, worth_the_wait said:

I understand the point you're trying to make ... but I think you might find that people on very low incomes would consider £125k a year to be rich beyond their wildest dreams. 

 

And I don't think they are in the same boat ... unless some rather poor parts of the country have suddenly morphed into leafy Surrey suburbia, when I wasn't looking!

 

oh I totally agree that their lifestyles aren't "comparable"........ someone on £125k a year is earning around £6,500 a month after tax.........  but if someone has £20m or more, they are earning over £800,000 in interest alone, at 4% growth... after tax, that's £35,000 a month...... and that's purely interest.......  so the £25k earner and the £125,000 earner, have far more in common in their personal situations, than the person with £20m in wealth. 

 

I don't think the general population see that though. 

[BKLFox]

Labour trying a bit of self sabotage with Ali

[Dunge]

3 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

Labour trying a bit of self sabotage with Ali

But of a mess up there. I think they’ve tried to offer the benefit of the doubt based on a quick and unreserved apology, but then they’ve been presented with evidence of further incidents. So they’ve annoyed both those to their right who want to see antisemitism stamped out and those on their left who want to see Labour speaking up more for Palestine.

 

Ironically I expect Ali to still win the seat as “Labour’s candidate” although he won’t actually represent them. I also expect turnout to be through the floor though so who knows what’ll happen.

[David Hankey]

The fact of the matter is we all want politics and politicians to clean up their act. 

 

'Capt. Hindsight' eventually did the right thing over their candidate in Rochdale but acted not "decisively", as he reckons, but 48 hours too late.

 

To my mind there are two issues here, Labour's selection process and their stance on anti-Semitism.

 

Surely there are more capable people to stand in this so-called Labour stronghold? 

[MPH]

44 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

The fact of the matter is we all want politics and politicians to clean up their act. 

 

'Capt. Hindsight' eventually did the right thing over their candidate in Rochdale but acted not "decisively", as he reckons, but 48 hours too late.

 

To my mind there are two issues here, Labour's selection process and their stance on anti-Semitism.

 

Surely there are more capable people to stand in this so-called Labour stronghold? 

 

 

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with how quick  politics has been to use the phrase ' antisemitism'. To me there is a difference between believing the land belongs to the palestinians and wanting  a favorable outcome for them and showing hostility, prejudice and discrimination towards the jews.  I strongly support Ukraine , for example, but that doesn't mean i hate or feel prejudiced towards all Russians..

[Daggers]

9 hours ago, Daggers said:

😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

Sunak enters the “Find Out” phase…

 

 

Turns out Sunak’s anti-vax mentalist has form for being a full-on weirdo

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-butler-buff-battered-two-13024095.amp
 

 

[urban.spaceman]

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

[LVFox]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

 

Imagine bragging about only being able to convince half of the people who always vote for you, to still vote for you when put in front of them to do that exact job! 

[David Hankey]

39 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

I have always been a bit uncomfortable with how quick  politics has been to use the phrase ' antisemitism'. To me there is a difference between believing the land belongs to the palestinians and wanting  a favorable outcome for them and showing hostility, prejudice and discrimination towards the jews.  I strongly support Ukraine , for example, but that doesn't mean i hate or feel prejudiced towards all Russians..

Well, this has nothing at all to do with Ukraine/Russia.

 

I do, however, agree that we often hear cries of anti-Semitism when a dislike of what the Jews/Israel are doing, particularly, in Gaza.

 

Having said all that the Labour Rochdale candidate, prior to him being defrocked, should have engaged is brain before opening his mouth.

 

It makes you wonder what sort of MP he would make, independent or otherwise. 

[Wymsey]

What are people's thoughts about the NHS dentist situation?..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1r1z5depwgo

 

This should've been sorted many years ago, really.

[Daggers]

37 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

They can’t even buy votes successfully. 

[Facecloth]

2 hours ago, David Hankey said:

The fact of the matter is we all want politics and politicians to clean up their act. 

 

'Capt. Hindsight' eventually did the right thing over their candidate in Rochdale but acted not "decisively", as he reckons, but 48 hours too late.

 

To my mind there are two issues here, Labour's selection process and their stance on anti-Semitism.

 

Surely there are more capable people to stand in this so-called Labour stronghold? 

Well that's not actually true is it? Comments came to light, that it seems Starmer accepted the reasoning behind them. More comments come to light on Sunday and they'd withdrawn support by Monday. Had action been taken too soon to remove him as a candidate then he could potentially have sued the party. There's some thought that the Mail sat on the second comments until it was too late to withdraw him, engineering this situation. What I do agree with is that there must have been someone better to stand. The vetting process failed.

 

I also think it's a little ironic calling Labour out for not acting on the first comments and instead acting swftly on the 2nd ones and calling that indecisive when the Tories are keen on welcoming known antisemite Nigel Farage into the fold and were very slow, took no action or even tried to change the rules after Bone, Patel, Raab, and Patterson were all proven to have to have done various things such as bullying or taking dodgy payments.