The Labour Government

mexico1970 said:
She's cartoon character evil mate.
Click to expand...

Is she though? I would consider somebody like Putin to be "cartoon character evil". He's currently indiscriminately bombing civilian centres and threatening to nuke half of the world.

Is taking the winter fuel payment away enough to qualify somebody as evil these days? In which case so is half the country, according to YouGov 47% of the country is supportive of making it means-tested.

The worst I can say about Reeves is that she is your run of the mill status quo milquetoast technocrat and I don't think we can expect her to do anything that's actually interesting. There's about 10,000 of her where I work in London.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Is she though? I would consider somebody like Putin to be "cartoon character evil". He's currently indiscriminately bombing civilian centres and threatening to nuke half of the world.

Is taking the winter fuel payment away enough to qualify somebody as evil these days? In which case so is half the country, according to YouGov 47% of the country is supportive of making it means-tested.

The worst I can say about Reeves is that she is your run of the mill status quo milquetoast technocrat and I don't think we can expect her to do anything that's actually interesting. There's about 10,000 of her where I work in London.
Click to expand...


Considering she is supposedly from the "Kinder" side of British politics yes mate, all I can see from this government so far are lies.

We all recognise that means testing the payments would probably cost more than what we are actually saving, the first big decision was to go for pensioners winter payments, quoting YouGov as a deciding factor to implement the move is using short term populism which is what I thought the fake Tories were against?

Yeah, if it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck IMHO it's a Duck mate.
 
hilts said:
.

Strange manly features and voice, vocal delivery also very robotic and unemotional.

Sinister.
Click to expand...
Edna-Mode.jpg
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Is she though? I would consider somebody like Putin to be "cartoon character evil". He's currently indiscriminately bombing civilian centres and threatening to nuke half of the world.

Is taking the winter fuel payment away enough to qualify somebody as evil these days? In which case so is half the country, according to YouGov 47% of the country is supportive of making it means-tested.

The worst I can say about Reeves is that she is your run of the mill status quo milquetoast technocrat and I don't think we can expect her to do anything that's actually interesting. There's about 10,000 of her where I work in London.
Click to expand...
I suppose that would depend whose gran she offed. The 47% figure is irrelevant as lots have said it should have been done differently ie means tested in a different way.

But dishonest that mate. I have no idea what % think she has done it the best way possible.
 
mexico1970 said:
Considering she is supposedly from the "Kinder" side of British politics yes mate, all I can see from this government so far are lies.

We all recognise that means testing the payments would probably cost more than what we are actually saving, the first big decision was to go for pensioners winter payments, quoting YouGov as a deciding factor to implement the move is using short term populism which is what I thought the fake Tories were against?

Yeah, if it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck IMHO it's a Duck mate.
Click to expand...

I'm not quoting YouGov as a deciding factor on whether we should implement a policy (I actually disagree with the policy myself and have said previously that in its current form it is poorly thought out). I'm taking aim at the characterisation of somebody as evil. I'm merely highlighting that your bar for evil seems to be very low.

Maybe it's just me but I don't go straight to the idea that people are evil just because I disagree with them. I didn't think Rishi Sunak was evil - and he demonstrably lied on a number of occasions. I can't see how we work towards better outcomes in an environment where we just label people without any nuance as if all their decisions have to be strictly based on personality disorders and not just their assessment of the situation.
 
hilts said:
I suppose that would depend whose gran she offed. The 47% figure is irrelevant as lots have said it should have been done differently ie means tested in a different way.

But dishonest that mate. I have no idea what % think she has done it the best way possible.
Click to expand...

See my reply above - I am one of those people. I just think there's a difference between "you're wrong" and "you're evil".
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I'm not quoting YouGov as a deciding factor on whether we should implement a policy (I actually disagree with the policy myself and have said previously that in its current form it is poorly thought out). I'm taking aim at the characterisation of somebody as evil. I'm merely highlighting that your bar for evil seems to be very low.

Maybe it's just me but I don't think go straight to the idea that people are evil just because I disagree with them. I didn't think Rishi Sunak was evil - and he demonstrably lied on a number of occasions. I can't see how we work towards better outcomes in an environment where we just label people without any nuance as if all their decisions have to be strictly based on personality disorders and not just their assessment of the situation.
Click to expand...


I based my opinion mainly on her looks (Shallow I know and ever so slightly tongue in cheek) and the fact the first thing she went for are pensioners, not the wealthy tax avoiders but the pensioners.

She's the right arm of Starmer who has warned that people must shoulder the burden, and we all know it will be the same people shouldering the burden that always have, it'll not be Starbucks or Apple or the Scruffy Jims of this world because let's be honest the fake Tories are not the fake Tories for anything.

Just like in the great nation of USA where the Democrats have been told who to tax by the rich and wealthy I firmly believe and expect that the new Tories will adapt the position and take it up the gipper for the greater good.
 
mexico1970 said:
I based my opinion mainly on her looks (Shallow I know and ever so slightly tongue in cheek) and the fact the first thing she went for are pensioners, not the wealthy tax avoiders but the pensioners.

She's the right arm of Starmer who has warned that people must shoulder the burden, and we all know it will be the same people shouldering the burden that always have, it'll not be Starbucks or Apple or the Scruffy Jims of this world because let's be honest the fake Tories are not the fake Tories for anything.

Just like in the great nation of USA where the Democrats have been told who to tax by the rich and wealthy I firmly believe and expect that the new Tories will adapt the position and take it up the gipper for the greater good.
Click to expand...

I take your point, and you know I am a woolly liberal social democrat type, I want to see more evening of the wealth landscape. And I will take Labour to task on that as much as the next person.

I am just satisfied to judge them in time on their performance instead of what they say they are going to do (which I always take largely with a pinch of salt as political messaging and actual reality are rarely in alignment).

5 years is a very long time in politics and the people complaining they are Tory lite now might be complaining they're communist extremists in a few year's time. In fact, we already seem to have some people saying the latter which is... immensely baffling.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
See my reply above - I am one of those people. I just think there's a difference between "you're wrong" and "you're evil".
Click to expand...
She has to know the consequences so i disagree. Politicians have to make hard decisions that will cost lives, I get that but to take something away to save a small amount you don't need to save is just fucking nasty. It was done for appearances.
I'm happy with evil tbf but I'm a harsh judge of people if I'm honest:-)
 
hilts said:
She has to know the consequences so i disagree. Politicians have to make hard decisions that will cost lives, I get that but to take something away to save a small amount you don't need to save is just fucking nasty. It was done for appearances.
I'm happy with evil tbh but I'm a harsh judge of people if I'm honest:-)
Click to expand...


I'm seriously considering taking her portrait down from my powder room in protest.
 
west didsblue said:
Why would you not expect a tariff free deal? The EU has tariff free deals with nearly 100 countries either directly or via other trading blocs. Why not us?
Click to expand...
Spite, mainly.

A bit too OT to go into great detail but prior to Brexit, there was a lot of noise coming out of the EU about not wanting to encourage other would-be break away nations, so I was fully expecting either for them to slap tariffs on UK exports (i.e. from us to them), or billions in membership fees.
 
Blue and true said:
Ultimately, I'm not really arsed if the new law comes into effect. I just think it's a sensible idea and shouldn't lead to indignant crying from smokers.
Click to expand...

I don't smoke andin fact I think it's a foul habit and I hate sitting around other peoples' fag smoke.

But, far more important to me is that the government should govern what needs to be governed and not be sticking its fucking oar in all over the place, meddling with peoples' lives. Where does this meddling end? How about banning the sale of half bottles of spirits from corner shops, to stop the local 80-year old alckies buying the Bells along with their 10 L&B's and a couple of scratch cards?

How about banning hang gliding, or other dangerous sports? That doubtless costs the NHS patching people up. Or hill walking, because it's expensive sending the rescue helicopter out isn't it.

No, this is ideological bollocks from the man who said only a few short weeks ago, that he promised to govern with a "light touch" and minimal interference. Liar.

The other consideration is the number of pubs that will inevitably go under. I cannot support the idea at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top