Do you want to discuss boring politics? (37 Viewers)

Forums New posts
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Teachers in England are now the worst paid in Britain
Click to expand...
So we can take from that, that a Labour led adminitration has a better teacher's salary at present than a Conservative led one.
 
clint van damme

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Ian1779

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
Bloody hell, I knew it was bad, I didn't realise how bad, over 800 instances per day last year

news.sky.com

Water firms to face unlimited fines for polluting - as environment secretary accused of 'national scandal'

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey is expected to announce plans next week to introduce tougher fines for polluting but opposition politicians have called for her to resign, accusing the government of "turning Britain's waterways into an open sewer".
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Fine the fuckers out of business and then nationalise the lot.
 
JAM See

JAM See

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
Hahahahaga. John Smith is Eric black, Tony Blair is Mickey Adam’s, Ed Milliband is Stephen Presley and Corbyn is Slade.

It is the way.

Oh and Gordon Brown is Roland Nilsson
Click to expand...
Who's Gordon Milne?

Not who's Gordon Milne, but who's Gordon Milne?
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
clint van damme said:
Bloody hell, I knew it was bad, I didn't realise how bad, over 800 instances per day last year

news.sky.com

Water firms to face unlimited fines for polluting - as environment secretary accused of 'national scandal'

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey is expected to announce plans next week to introduce tougher fines for polluting but opposition politicians have called for her to resign, accusing the government of "turning Britain's waterways into an open sewer".
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Disgusting - when did they start doing it?
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
clint van damme said:
I want what I've saying for ages, some radical reform to undo the mess of the last 13 years and especially the last 3 or 4.

I don't buy this it cant be done overnight.

The energy companies are making record profits on the back of higher energy prices caused by the war.
The supermarkets are profiteering on the back of food price inflation which is over 20 percent.

Train prices have gone through the roof and massive dividends and bonuses been paid to executives.

The British public, the tax payers of the only G7 country whose economy hasnt returned to pre pandemic levels, are picking up the tab.

It's got to stop, and the damage has got to be undone, we're shouldn't be a cash cow for spivs and cronies.

Freezing council tax for a year isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...
I think it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I agree with you that we need massively radical change to sort out the shit we're in. Not just economically but environmentally, health, education, public services, housing... the list goes on and on.

However, I'm also a realist and know that were we to do that it would lead to the markets crashing (not due to actual policies but their perception of 'on no, they're only going to let us make a fortune rather than a massive one so best sell everything quick') and that the measures taken would be hacked to pieces as after so much time being under right-wing government we're ingrained to thinking things like 'tax is bad', the country's budget should be looked at like a household budget and cut cloth accordingly, and being selfish and unnecessarily wealthy is something to aspire to.

Confidence in the abilities of Labour and the left is very shaky in this country dating back to the 70's and the slightest misstep is seen as incompetence whereas with the Tories it seems to be 'oh, its only a minor blip' or 'that was beyond their control' even though they've shown mismanagement of the economy numerous times.

These problems can't be fixed in a single term - there's too many. So then you've got people who'd say "well they haven't fixed the problems so time to ditch these lefty policies and get proper economic policies in. So you'd get one term with Labour in power and then you end up back with the Tories for another 3 terms because inexplicably people think they can manage the economy.

Fact is if we want to fix these problems it's not something an election can do. It's changing public perception on what we consider economic success to be, that capitalism is deeply flawed and growth is not the be all and end all of economics, that all these other factors are just as important as economics, that people are more important than businesses and money, and most crucially that being ridiculously wealthy is not something to aspire to as it causes so much damage in so many areas obtaining. But if you put that in a manifesto you're going to lose. People have become ingrained with ideas that will see them vote against their own best interests.

It's going to take a generation to change those ideas in society. But that's not going to happen if there is a right wing government in power a majority of the time setting the agenda. So you have to make it so that a left leaning government is in power long enough to take control of the narrative to change those opinions. And in the short term that means taking a softer approach to keep those whose faith in Labour is fragile on board.

I don't like it. I want radical change. But I know it wouldn't be given a proper chance.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
I think it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I agree with you that we need massively radical change to sort out the shit we're in. Not just economically but environmentally, health, education, public services, housing... the list goes on and on.

However, I'm also a realist and know that were we to do that it would lead to the markets crashing (not due to actual policies but their perception of 'on no, they're only going to let us make a fortune rather than a massive one so best sell everything quick') and that the measures taken would be hacked to pieces as after so much time being under right-wing government we're ingrained to thinking things like 'tax is bad', the country's budget should be looked at like a household budget and cut cloth accordingly, and being selfish and unnecessarily wealthy is something to aspire to.

Confidence in the abilities of Labour and the left is very shaky in this country dating back to the 70's and the slightest misstep is seen as incompetence whereas with the Tories it seems to be 'oh, its only a minor blip' or 'that was beyond their control' even though they've shown mismanagement of the economy numerous times.

These problems can't be fixed in a single term - there's too many. So then you've got people who'd say "well they haven't fixed the problems so time to ditch these lefty policies and get proper economic policies in. So you'd get one term with Labour in power and then you end up back with the Tories for another 3 terms because inexplicably people think they can manage the economy.

Fact is if we want to fix these problems it's not something an election can do. It's changing public perception on what we consider economic success to be, that capitalism is deeply flawed and growth is not the be all and end all of economics, that all these other factors are just as important as economics, that people are more important than businesses and money, and most crucially that being ridiculously wealthy is not something to aspire to as it causes so much damage in so many areas obtaining. But if you put that in a manifesto you're going to lose. People have become ingrained with ideas that will see them vote against their own best interests.

It's going to take a generation to change those ideas in society. But that's not going to happen if there is a right wing government in power a majority of the time setting the agenda. So you have to make it so that a left leaning government is in power long enough to take control of the narrative to change those opinions. And in the short term that means taking a softer approach to keep those whose faith in Labour is fragile on board.

I don't like it. I want radical change. But I know it wouldn't be given a proper chance.
Click to expand...

That's as well thought through a post as I've seen for a while. I appreciate that's a pretty low bar, but still. 🙂

I think the one place where we might politely differ, is that there are some open goals that Labour seems to have moved away from since Starmer took over.

I can't imagine that re-nationalisation of water (a literal private monopoly performing disastrously), buses, and failing rail franchises, would scare too many voters, and success here might reframe the argument elsewhere at a later point.

It would also perhaps put some clear blue water between Labour and the Tories in terms of policy approach - at the moment I'm not sure there's much space between them other than perceived competence.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Good to know they trust us with children so much they think we would ignore signs of abuse
Click to expand...
It's also very sneaky, because that's exactly what they're trying to do. Create this idea that it's the fault of the teachers/carers etc. because they don't act on seeing signs of abuse. Not their fault for taking away all the funding for things that actually help reduce abuse and break the cycle once it has been reported. No, it's those terrible teachers currently holding the country to ransom with pay demands for not reporting it.

It's a cuntish thing to do. And sadly will probably be effective.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It's also very sneaky, because that's exactly what they're trying to do. Create this idea that it's the fault of the teachers/carers etc. because they don't act on seeing signs of abuse. Not their fault for taking away all the funding for things that actually help reduce abuse and break the cycle once it has been reported. No, it's those terrible teachers currently holding the country to ransom with pay demands for not reporting it.

It's a cuntish thing to do. And sadly will probably be effective.
Click to expand...
They do of course know that teachers already are legally obliged to report to the police suspected cases of female genital mutilation. And that we are trained in making PREVENT referrals, and for filing safeguarding concerns on both children and on staff.

A pity that they want to continue escalating their grudge against a profession they are already hopelessly failing to recruit and retain staff for.
 
dutchman

dutchman

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
I can't imagine that re-nationalisation of water (a literal private monopoly performing disastrously), buses, and failing rail franchises, would scare too many voters, and success here might reframe the argument elsewhere at a later point.
Click to expand...
It was never actually nationalised. It was originally owned by local authorities which meant that people on low incomes could claim a rebate on their water rates.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Grendel said:
Lisa Nandy pretty much agreed with these comments and also refused to say if Labour would change the Riwanda Policy
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then Labour is pathetic. I’m not surprised though, which is why I’d only vote for Starmer because he’s not the Conservatives.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
If that’s the case then Labour is pathetic. I’m not surprised though, which is why I’d only vote for Starmer because he’s not the Conservatives.
Click to expand...

She did say that Labour would process claims more quickly but didn't say explicitly that the Rwanda agreement would be abandoned. She did mention a return agreement with France.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
No she didn't.
Click to expand...

She was asked 4 times regarding Riwanda and would labour cancel the policy. Refused to say so

She spluttered about grooming across all cultures and then said there are particular issues with Pakistani and Kurdish grooming gangs and quoted Rochdale as an example

On an entirely different issue she was asked about CGT in light of the gains made by Sunak and Starmer and was asked if she agreed with Rayner that this needs dealing with. She said Rachel Reeves will evaluate but at present no policy is being discussed to change the taxation levels of CGT
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Actually, according to this article she mentioned that the Tory doesn't have a returns agreement with France but did not say that one would be established by the Labour government.

www.indy100.com

Labour MP explains everything that's wrong with the Rwanda plan in under two minutes

If Lisa Nandy’s appearance on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg taught us anything this morning, then it’s that you only need around two minutes to completely eviscerate the Conservative government’s plan to send refugees and asylum seekers to Rwanda.Appearing on TV in the same morning that Suella...
www.indy100.com www.indy100.com

“That’s what we would do. We’d set up a cell to tackle the criminal gangs, working across borders; we’d process our asylum claims quickly; and we’d get a grip on the asylum system.

“That, in the end, is the only way to run a fair, humane, effective system that commands the confidence of the British people. Frankly, she should be ashamed of herself for touring the TV studios, making more and more bold claims when she can’t even do the basics of her own job.”
Click to expand...
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
Actually, according to this article she mentioned that the Tory doesn't have a returns agreement with France but did not say that one would be established by the Labour government.

www.indy100.com

Labour MP explains everything that's wrong with the Rwanda plan in under two minutes

If Lisa Nandy’s appearance on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg taught us anything this morning, then it’s that you only need around two minutes to completely eviscerate the Conservative government’s plan to send refugees and asylum seekers to Rwanda.Appearing on TV in the same morning that Suella...
www.indy100.com www.indy100.com
Click to expand...

Yes that’s what she said. She said they’d close down the gangs by setting up a cell - whatever that means
 
P

PVA

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
She was asked 4 times regarding Riwanda and would labour cancel the policy. Refused to say so

She spluttered about grooming across all cultures and then said there are particular issues with Pakistani and Kurdish grooming gangs and quoted Rochdale as an example
Click to expand...

She said that there are problems from various cultural backgrounds and that it’s not helpful to single out one particular profile.

So basically the total opposite of what Braverman said.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
PVA said:
She said that there are problems from various cultural backgrounds and that it’s not helpful to single out one particular profile.

So basically the total opposite of what Braverman said.
Click to expand...

She said there are issues with Pakistani and Kurdish gangs - so she singled them out and Rochdale and Sheffield

Did she when asked would she cancel the Rwanda Bill say yes she would?
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
She said there are issues with Pakistani and Kurdish gangs - so she singled them out and Rochdale and Sheffield

Did she when asked would she cancel the Rwanda Bill say yes she would?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking the housing secretary about home office policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 32 (members: 0, guests: 32)
Top