Do you want to discuss boring politics? (74 Viewers)

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Rabb out Abboting Abbot

Dumbinic Raabbott

 

---

[David O'Day]

They won't. But that's the whole point.

They certainly would remember if Labour voted against it and thousands of people start dying in a few weeks.

I don't know why you're so keen for Labour to vote against life saving measures. It would be disastrous for them.

The Tories are eating themselves alive at the minute. Labour don't need to do much other than sit back and watch the carnage unfold. Voting against this is just not an option

Also the public are largely in support of extra measures. It's a weird flex to just attack Labour now no matter what they do even if it is teh right thing.

 

[Ian1779]

They won't. But that's the whole point.

They certainly would remember if Labour voted against it and thousands of people start dying in a few weeks.

I don't know why you're so keen for Labour to vote against life saving measures. It would be disastrous for them.

The Tories are eating themselves alive at the minute. Labour don't need to do much other than sit back and watch the carnage unfold. Voting against this is just not an option

I don’t know why you wouldn’t want Labour to use this rebellion to secure financial protection for the people that will be adversely affected by having to adhere to these measures. It’s all very well Labour supporting the government (which I get why they should) but they should also be fighting for the rights of the people that get the worst of any restrictions.
That’s not party politicking - that’s serving the very people you want to represent and lead.

 

[David O'Day]

I don’t know why you wouldn’t want Labour to use this rebellion to secure financial protection for the people that will be adversely affected by having to adhere to these measures. It’s all very well Labour supporting the government (which I get why they should) but they should also be fighting for the rights of the people that get the worst of any restrictions.
That’s not party politicking - that’s serving the very people you want to represent and lead.

I don't think they'd get anything though. I wouldn't put it past the government to let the vote be lost and then using they press they can start to tell the public who support the measures that Labour stopped them.

 

[Nick]

Support the measures after they had tried their best to scare people?

 

[Deleted member 9744]

I don't think they'd get anything though. I wouldn't put it past the government to let the vote be lost and then using they press they can start to tell the public who support the measures that Labour stopped them.

Exactly, it would be a massive trap to fall into and morally reprehensible in my view as it would delay impirtant measures to protect the public. Johnson looks even weaker this way as he is only getting the measures through because of Labour's sensible approach.

 

[Ian1779]

Exactly, it would be a massive trap to fall into and morally reprehensible in my view as it would delay impirtant measures to protect the public. Johnson looks even weaker this way as he is only getting the measures through because of Labour's sensible approach.

I’m not sure that Labour supporting the measures makes Johnson look weaker at all - and there is no way that assertion will play out in the media.

An opportunity to try to a) maximise compliance with financial support where appropriate and b) look like a party with not just a plan but supporting mechanisms to boot has been lost IMO.
They should despite what I’ve said still back the measures.

 

[David O'Day]

I’m not sure that Labour supporting the measures makes Johnson look weaker at all - and there is no way that assertion will play out in the media.

An opportunity to try to a) maximise compliance with financial support where appropriate and b) look like a party with not just a plan but supporting mechanisms to boot has been lost IMO.
They should despite what I’ve said still back the measures.

they would not give anything like that though

Not with a chancellor who is kicking off about the cost of the booster program

Sunak warns over multibillion cost of booster programme

Exclusive: Chancellor said to not have opposed jab regime but warned of spending cuts or tax rises to pay for it

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ian1779]

they would not give anything like that though

Not with a chancellor who is kicking off about the cost of the booster program

Sunak warns over multibillion cost of booster programme

Exclusive: Chancellor said to not have opposed jab regime but warned of spending cuts or tax rises to pay for it

www.theguardian.com

Ultimately you may well be right - but where is the harm in asking, and then shouting from the rooftops that the Government don’t give a fuck about supporting people that are asked to comply?

 

[PVA]

101 Tory rebels apparently. Ouch. Stick a fork in Johnson.

 

[fernandopartridge]

They won't. But that's the whole point.

They certainly would remember if Labour voted against it and thousands of people start dying in a few weeks.

I don't know why you're so keen for Labour to vote against life saving measures. It would be disastrous for them.

The Tories are eating themselves alive at the minute. Labour don't need to do much other than sit back and watch the carnage unfold. Voting against this is just not an option

I'm not asking them to vote against anything, they are in a position where they might be able to secure concessions to make the restrictions more manageable for ordinary people and ultimately more effective.

 

[fernandopartridge]

101 Tory rebels apparently. Ouch. Stick a fork in Johnson.

Everybody stick a fork in him apart from the opposition

 

[PVA]

Everybody stick a fork in him apart from the opposition

Take a look at the polls - the opposition are doing just fine.

As I said earlier, they don't need to stick the fork in, the Tories are doing a good job of that!

 

[PVA]

Also the government have revealed their reforms to the Human Rights Act today and its not gone down well, as I'm sure you can all imagine.

More movements towards trying to make themselves untouchable.

 

[Grendel]

Everybody stick a fork in him apart from the opposition

Why bother - he’s an idiot

 

[clint van damme]

 

[Deleted member 9744]

Also the government have revealed their reforms to the Human Rights Act today and its not gone down well, as I'm sure you can all imagine.

More movements towards trying to make themselves untouchable.

The Human Rights Act thing is really concerning. Aligning with Belarus rather than the EU.

 

[PVA]

Why bother - he’s an idiot

I know, yet you still voted for him

 

[skybluetony176]

Did an alarm alert police to a Downing Street Christmas party? | ITV News

The revelation raises questions about how much security staff and police knew about the event at the time. | ITV National News

www.itv.com

 

[fernandopartridge]

they would not give anything like that though

Not with a chancellor who is kicking off about the cost of the booster program

Sunak warns over multibillion cost of booster programme

Exclusive: Chancellor said to not have opposed jab regime but warned of spending cuts or tax rises to pay for it

www.theguardian.com

Good job the shadow chancellor goes right along with the all "taxpayer's money" nonsense then isn't it, makes it much easier to oppose this sort of thing.

 

[Deleted member 9744]

Why bother - he’s an idiot

Yeah you get to be Director of Public Prosecutions easily by being an idiot whereas you need to be really intelligent to write stupid populist nonsense in right wing newspapers.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Did an alarm alert police to a Downing Street Christmas party? | ITV News

The revelation raises questions about how much security staff and police knew about the event at the time. | ITV National News

www.itv.com

It was actually this

 

[Grendel]

Yeah you get to be Director of Public Prosecutions easily by being an idiot whereas you need to be really intelligent to write stupid populist nonsense in right wing newspapers.

I was referring to PVA

 

[stupot07]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

Good job the shadow chancellor goes right along with the all "taxpayer's money" nonsense then isn't it, makes it much easier to oppose this sort of thing.

Cool story

 

[PVA]

I was referring to PVA

Literally everything you have posted recently gets proven wrong

Difficult time for you at the moment though with your precious hero under serious pressure

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Assuming that picture does show what they say it does, how fucking stupid would you have to be to have a picture taken of all of you knowing that the country is under restrictions?

 

[clint van damme]

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Oh dear,is that that wank Shaun Bailey, who's always banging on about law and order?

What a hypocrite.

 

[PVA]

Oh dear,is that that wank Shaun Bailey, who's always banging on about law and order?

What a hypocrite.

 

[stupot07]

Assuming that picture does show what they say it does, how fucking stupid would you have to be to have a picture taken of all of you knowing that the country is under restrictions?

14 December last year when we were all on lockdown

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[David O'Day]

Good job the shadow chancellor goes right along with the all "taxpayer's money" nonsense then isn't it, makes it much easier to oppose this sort of thing.

what does that well known Starmerite Paul Mason say about the current Labour Budgetary offering?

"

Rachel Reeves, in a Budget response suddenly dumped on her by Keir Starmer’s positive Covid-19 test, gave a very effective answer. We can spell out a coherent alternative. And she did so with such clarity that it had the public schoolboys on the Tory backbenches rattled to their Asprey cufflinks.

Labour, unlike Sunak, would go on borrowing to invest. It would cut taxes on working people, starting with VAT on fuel tonight, and abolish business rates altogether, replacing them with taxes designed to force the tech monopolies to pay their fair share. It would, in addition, invest £224bn over eight years on decarbonising energy and transport.

While the Tories flaunt their insouciance over climate change, cutting the taxes paid by short-haul air passengers on the eve of the Cop26 summit, Labour has placed climate mitigation at the very centre of its investment plans. Reeves pointed out that, had the Tories not spent ten of the last 11 years squeezing life, growth and social justice out of the UK economy, Britain might not have suffered the worst recession and the worst scarring of any major country.

She told, in short, a convincing alternative story – something Labour has struggled to do since Starmer took office. By summoning the image of Johnson and Sunak as street pickpockets, buffooning around while they lift your purse, doling out favours to champagne-drinking bankers on pointless short-haul flights, Reeves also dramatised the social dynamics.
For all the fawning press Sunak gets from media types inside the network of favours, garden parties and wedding receptions that surround the Tory elite, the Chancellor wants – openly and philosophically – to radically shrink the welfare state, but who’s been forced by the unexpected arrival of Covid-19 to put it off for a bit.

The lives of real people, facing wages eroded by inflation, rising tax, fuel and energy bills, and crumbling public services, do not match the sunny optimism generated within Sunak’s Potemkin village. And that is Labour’s opportunity. In Red Wall seats where one Tory MP after another voted to flood local rivers with sewage, the penny has begun to drop: that people feel worse off because they are worse off; and that nothing in the actions of the Tory party suggest how they and their families might claw their way out of grinding, multigenerational, post-industrial distress.

So the warnings from some Labour-leaning commentators – that the Tories have put their tanks on Labour’s lawn and that the party’s electoral prospects are therefore doomed – are misguided. The differences could not be clearer.

And in Reeves the party has found – both at conference and by complete accident at the Budget – its most effective and gutsy communicator. Yes, she authored a book about Alice Bacon, “hammer of the Trotskyists”, and once disparaged benefit claimants, but Reeves also seems able to articulate the basic class antagonism Labour was formed to address.

In a party bereft of talented and articulate lawmakers, and of professionally competent people, this is all you can ask of a centrist social democrat. And Reeves’s achievement raises an interesting question. Last week, Dominic Cummings offered Labour a massive brain dump of advice on how to defeat Boris Johnson. The core of it is impossible to achieve: forget the socially liberal agenda of the labour movement and lure potential Tory switchers with promises to terrorise terrorists and jail criminals.

But in one respect, Reeves, and we should assume Starmer (who held the pen on the response speech until minutes before it was delivered), have followed Cummings’s advice – and were doing so as early as the Labour conference. They have begun to frame the party’s anti-austerity offer around tax cuts for working people – VAT, National Insurance and business rates – as well as borrowing. For it is a truism often forgotten by the Labour left that fiscal austerity can be embodied in a tax rise just as much as in a spending cut."

 

[clint van damme]

A least he's got some morals, unlike most of the others.
If this enquiry into Hardings appointment finds that laws were broken I wonder if any one will fall on their sword?

The way things are going Johnson may already be impaled by then.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Calls himself a Tory? Didn't even try to weasel out of it, claim it didn't happen or shove the blame on someone else.

 

[Ian1779]

what does that well known Starmerite Paul Mason say about the current Labour Budgetary offering?

"

Rachel Reeves, in a Budget response suddenly dumped on her by Keir Starmer’s positive Covid-19 test, gave a very effective answer. We can spell out a coherent alternative. And she did so with such clarity that it had the public schoolboys on the Tory backbenches rattled to their Asprey cufflinks.

Labour, unlike Sunak, would go on borrowing to invest. It would cut taxes on working people, starting with VAT on fuel tonight, and abolish business rates altogether, replacing them with taxes designed to force the tech monopolies to pay their fair share. It would, in addition, invest £224bn over eight years on decarbonising energy and transport.

While the Tories flaunt their insouciance over climate change, cutting the taxes paid by short-haul air passengers on the eve of the Cop26 summit, Labour has placed climate mitigation at the very centre of its investment plans. Reeves pointed out that, had the Tories not spent ten of the last 11 years squeezing life, growth and social justice out of the UK economy, Britain might not have suffered the worst recession and the worst scarring of any major country.

She told, in short, a convincing alternative story – something Labour has struggled to do since Starmer took office. By summoning the image of Johnson and Sunak as street pickpockets, buffooning around while they lift your purse, doling out favours to champagne-drinking bankers on pointless short-haul flights, Reeves also dramatised the social dynamics.
For all the fawning press Sunak gets from media types inside the network of favours, garden parties and wedding receptions that surround the Tory elite, the Chancellor wants – openly and philosophically – to radically shrink the welfare state, but who’s been forced by the unexpected arrival of Covid-19 to put it off for a bit.

The lives of real people, facing wages eroded by inflation, rising tax, fuel and energy bills, and crumbling public services, do not match the sunny optimism generated within Sunak’s Potemkin village. And that is Labour’s opportunity. In Red Wall seats where one Tory MP after another voted to flood local rivers with sewage, the penny has begun to drop: that people feel worse off because they are worse off; and that nothing in the actions of the Tory party suggest how they and their families might claw their way out of grinding, multigenerational, post-industrial distress.

So the warnings from some Labour-leaning commentators – that the Tories have put their tanks on Labour’s lawn and that the party’s electoral prospects are therefore doomed – are misguided. The differences could not be clearer.

And in Reeves the party has found – both at conference and by complete accident at the Budget – its most effective and gutsy communicator. Yes, she authored a book about Alice Bacon, “hammer of the Trotskyists”, and once disparaged benefit claimants, but Reeves also seems able to articulate the basic class antagonism Labour was formed to address.

In a party bereft of talented and articulate lawmakers, and of professionally competent people, this is all you can ask of a centrist social democrat. And Reeves’s achievement raises an interesting question. Last week, Dominic Cummings offered Labour a massive brain dump of advice on how to defeat Boris Johnson. The core of it is impossible to achieve: forget the socially liberal agenda of the labour movement and lure potential Tory switchers with promises to terrorise terrorists and jail criminals.

But in one respect, Reeves, and we should assume Starmer (who held the pen on the response speech until minutes before it was delivered), have followed Cummings’s advice – and were doing so as early as the Labour conference. They have begun to frame the party’s anti-austerity offer around tax cuts for working people – VAT, National Insurance and business rates – as well as borrowing. For it is a truism often forgotten by the Labour left that fiscal austerity can be embodied in a tax rise just as much as in a spending cut."

Mason also said this just this afternoon….

 

[David O'Day]

Mason also said this just this afternoon….

And? That has nothing to do with teh comparison between Sunak's views on Economics and Rachel Reeves.