FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour: one year on.
Labour: one year on.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"48% increase in numbers arriving on small boats Six suicides due to farmers iht bill £100M annual cost over failed pip bill More businesses closing than opening Housing starts 46% lower than 2024 1890 farm closures Q1 2025 " Farm closures?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come." And yet the economy has kept growing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing " Lets talk about that in October. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October." Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!!" I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it." But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" Still trying to sort out the mess left by Boris and brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact?" Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above." Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires " You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out." What's playing out is, NHS waiting lists are coming down. The asylum backlog is coming down, people have autonomy over when they die, women aren't going to be prosecuted over having an abortion, people are safer in the workplace, children will be going less hungry at schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out. What's playing out is, NHS waiting lists are coming down. The asylum backlog is coming down, people have autonomy over when they die, women aren't going to be prosecuted over having an abortion, people are safer in the workplace, children will be going less hungry at schools." You are now muted until Q4  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out. What's playing out is, NHS waiting lists are coming down. The asylum backlog is coming down, people have autonomy over when they die, women aren't going to be prosecuted over having an abortion, people are safer in the workplace, children will be going less hungry at schools. You are now muted until Q4 "The markets like Reeves the opposite of lettuce Liz | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" not much, I would give them a 3/10 could do better mark | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? not much, I would give them a 3/10 could do better mark " Out of interest what is the 3 for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? not much, I would give them a 3/10 could do better mark Out of interest what is the 3 for? " Free school meals Better workers rights People having the autonomy to choose when to die Off the top of my head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) " Coogan sits on the hard left, Labour was never going to satisfy him. If Labour adopted the kind of policies that would win his vote, they would lose the country in the process. The public has consistently rejected that political position at the ballot box. Starmer and Labour know this and appealed to the centre which is what they need to do to win an election, however this has rattled the hard left who are getting more and more vocal, you can see the same soundbites and dog whistles being used and picking up momentum. They will try to remove him, and if they succeed they will almost certainly lose the next election and possibly force an early one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Coogan sits on the hard left, Labour was never going to satisfy him. If Labour adopted the kind of policies that would win his vote, they would lose the country in the process. The public has consistently rejected that political position at the ballot box. Starmer and Labour know this and appealed to the centre which is what they need to do to win an election, however this has rattled the hard left who are getting more and more vocal, you can see the same soundbites and dog whistles being used and picking up momentum. They will try to remove him, and if they succeed they will almost certainly lose the next election and possibly force an early one." Coogan hard left 😭😭😭 Or just a decent person that sees humanity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) " You sure it's the guardian? Just gone to find it to read and all I can find is 5 year old articles from him on the guardian app? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? not much, I would give them a 3/10 could do better mark Out of interest what is the 3 for? Free school meals Better workers rights People having the autonomy to choose when to die Off the top of my head " the workers rights has not been achieved its been watered down & has still not fully gone through parliament, what will be left is not worth having | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) You sure it's the guardian? Just gone to find it to read and all I can find is 5 year old articles from him on the guardian app?" Try the Independent or Telegraph. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) You sure it's the guardian? Just gone to find it to read and all I can find is 5 year old articles from him on the guardian app?" Found it it's Josh Halliday interviewing Coogan 👍👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? not much, I would give them a 3/10 could do better mark Out of interest what is the 3 for? Free school meals Better workers rights People having the autonomy to choose when to die Off the top of my head the workers rights has not been achieved its been watered down & has still not fully gone through parliament, what will be left is not worth having " It's good stuff, she's doing a good job is the red Queen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) " Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. " Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg " The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since." It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism " “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! " I see no lies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" Looking in from the outside, it looks like they are carrying on from 2010. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Looking in from the outside, it looks like they are carrying on from 2010." Dudley is now not in Britain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! " Let's just say the banks had been left to go bust, would that have been a good thing ? What effect do you think it might have had on the economy ? How might it have effected your savings ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! Let's just say the banks had been left to go bust, would that have been a good thing ? What effect do you think it might have had on the economy ? How might it have effected your savings ?" It's what's always happened in recessions. People suffer and rebuild it's an unfortunate side of capitalism. We now have dead wood businesses too big to fail because the politicians are terrified of recession on their watch | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Looking in from the outside, it looks like they are carrying on from 2010. Dudley is now not in Britain?" 'No sir. I'm from the black country'  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Looking in from the outside, it looks like they are carrying on from 2010. Dudley is now not in Britain? 'No sir. I'm from the black country' "How you looking in from the outside? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! Let's just say the banks had been left to go bust, would that have been a good thing ? What effect do you think it might have had on the economy ? How might it have effected your savings ?" No, it clearly wouldn’t have been a good thing for many people. But then again neither were the consequences of what we ‘had’ to do anyway (and they still aren’t, yet we are seemingly all still held hostage to neoliberal economics, approaching two decades later) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Coogan has accused Keir Starmer’s Labour government of a “derogation of all the principles they were supposed to represent” and said they were paving the way for the “racist clowns” of Reform UK (Full article todays guardian) Lot of truth in that article. …& there is plenty of support for left of centre policies out there ready to be harnessed, especially amongst the young. They have a lot of grievances as the system as is isn’t currently working for them. Agree, nothing radical in it, it's true the system is broken. Hence people are looking at reform so why not a new party of the left? Not sure what their going to offer more than the Greens even lib Dems have shifted left from nick clegg The system has been broken since 2008. Neoliberalism should have been dead & buried at that point. But no, we all had to bail it out & for what? Crap growth ever since. It probably was the right thing to do due to the amount of homes and businesses that would have gone under. Furlough was probably the right thing also for the same reasons. But whatnot has done is shown us what the state can do and now we've become dependent on state intervention. Recession seems like a bad thing now rather than the unfortunate consequence of capitalism “Don’t worry friends, the free market will self correct” And what was Joe Public’s reward whilst the bankers of 2008 were bailed out & largely went unpunished? A decade of Austerity. And these people have the temerity to criticise left wing economic policies? Furlough was different, even I don’t blame the Tories for that one. Meanwhile, in 2025 we have working people using foodbanks. Hurrah for low wages! Let's just say the banks had been left to go bust, would that have been a good thing ? What effect do you think it might have had on the economy ? How might it have effected your savings ? No, it clearly wouldn’t have been a good thing for many people. But then again neither were the consequences of what we ‘had’ to do anyway (and they still aren’t, yet we are seemingly all still held hostage to neoliberal economics, approaching two decades later) "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing " Yeah and so has Russia's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff " We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? " Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff " I remember the day it was a Tuesday, the day 28th the month October the year 1997 and Gordon browns change to the fiscal rules and the birth of the now obsolete no more like the gold FSA, which contributed to the 2008 crash, seriously they have not got a clue and should leave well alone, look but do not touch anything should of been written on the note. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Steve Rotheram, the Labour mayor of Liverpool city region, says Downing Street’s repeated missteps were “winding up” people who wanted to back the government. Speaking as the party marked 12 months in government after a stunning election win last summer, during which Starmer campaigned on an agenda of national renewal centred around a message of “change”, Rotherham said people were willing to forgive the occasional miscalculation but that the climbdowns over winter fuel payments and the welfare bill had left Starmer’s operation looking like “a mess”. He said: “What I think has exacerbated this feeling by many, not just politicians but people around the country, who look at this and think it’s a mess. Well, it’s a mess of our own making,” he said." Hard agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have an 'Iron Chancellor' who not only faked her CV but cries during PMQs. What could possibly go wrong!?" Iron & water, are we going to end up with a rusty chancellor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We have an 'Iron Chancellor' who not only faked her CV but cries during PMQs. What could possibly go wrong!?" Faked her CV? Said she left the BOE in September when it was March? She's actually emerged stronger. The markets went into free fall at the thought of her leaving so they actually do believe her and her odd fiscal rules. Investment to the UK is good, their investing in the right areas it all seems good to me, much better than the last 14 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists " You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. " Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing "A month every year some children are forbidden from eating at school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing
A month every year some children are forbidden from eating at school."They aren't starved though are they, it's abstination rather then actual starvation. You better hope you don't need an op during that month | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out." What exact date and time in October then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing "Ensuring children are fed is parents responsibility. I just don’t think the taxes from people on minimum wage should be spent on the children of middle class parents earning loads more money. Do you think everyone should get benefits regardless of how much they earn or how much they have in the bank? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing
Ensuring children are fed is parents responsibility.
I just don’t think the taxes from people on minimum wage should be spent on the children of middle class parents earning loads more money.
Do you think everyone should get benefits regardless of how much they earn or how much they have in the bank? "Ah! Yes this old trope, parents should be mystic Meg! They should know if one of them are about to loose a job or die and therefore render the child hungry!! I believe children should be treated equally! I don't believe OAPs should be treated equally some deserve the winter fuel allowance others are rich enough and ugly enough to pay for it. They've benefited from free universities, cheap housing and a growing economy. To say they can't live without a free handout of £300 is laughable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing
Ensuring children are fed is parents responsibility.
I just don’t think the taxes from people on minimum wage should be spent on the children of middle class parents earning loads more money.
Do you think everyone should get benefits regardless of how much they earn or how much they have in the bank?
Ah! Yes this old trope, parents should be mystic Meg! They should know if one of them are about to loose a job or die and therefore render the child hungry!!
I believe children should be treated equally!
I don't believe OAPs should be treated equally some deserve the winter fuel allowance others are rich enough and ugly enough to pay for it.
They've benefited from free universities, cheap housing and a growing economy. To say they can't live without a free handout of £300 is laughable "You don’t need to be psychic, you claim when you’re in need, when you qualify for a benefit. If we were to pay benefits out to everyone just in case they lose their job or die, the country would be bankrupt within weeks. Or do you actually believe in the Labour Party magic money tree? I agree with you on the winter fuel allowance, it should be means tested. I’m not sure being ugly should rule someone out tho, it should be based on financial circumstances, not looks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think you realise how hard it is in the UK at the moment. Children are going to school hungry because people can't afford food. So we can either make the case to make businesses pay better wages - I'm all for. Or while the Thatcherite creed exists and we can't touch businesses and millionaires we have to help families by making school as cheap as possible with food and uniform " I’m aware. People can only be paid based on the value they bring to the business, within the constraints of keeping that business profitable. Increases in pay without increasing productivity means increased prices. You just end up back where you started from, unless you reduce income tax. You can think what you like about Thatcher but the basic rate of tax fell by 8% during the first two terms of her government | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" Invigorated the red hand gang's far left echo chambers it would seem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Invigorated the red hand gang's far left echo chambers it would seem. " Or more temperate (not far left, left or in the middle) people realising a limited company is not the path they want to travel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Invigorated the red hand gang's far left echo chambers it would seem. Or more temperate (not far left, left or in the middle) people realising a limited company is not the path they want to travel. " Far left are eager, the middle are disappointed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Invigorated the red hand gang's far left echo chambers it would seem. Or more temperate (not far left, left or in the middle) people realising a limited company is not the path they want to travel. Far left are eager, the middle are disappointed " I think you missed my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Invigorated the red hand gang's far left echo chambers it would seem. Or more temperate (not far left, left or in the middle) people realising a limited company is not the path they want to travel. Far left are eager, the middle are disappointed I think you missed my point. " I understand "your" point. However the pattern and language of far left activists is now beginning to echo through the left wing populists, much of what they are preaching can be seen word for word on these threads. My observation is the weakness in the labour government is fuelling the far left echo chambers. I'm not worried by this, the numbers involved do not equate to the noise they make, much like the far right, it is all bluster and little substance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff We already had free school meals for those on benefits etc so I’m assuming we now have free school meals for millionaires kids too? I guess I missed that. If so, why is the income tax of those on minimum wage being handed out to millionaires kids a good thing? Because millionaires children aren't likely to be at state school. But anyway, children are cruel and stigma sticks, so it's better to treat children uniformally. Making them show proof or join a different que because your mum and dad are poor isn't going to help the mental health of those poor children and only contribute in stigmatising them and there for labouring the fact that the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gates actually exists You assume all rich people send their kids to private school which is absolutely not the case. And not all parents who send their kids to private school are rich, as the government are finding out from their VAT on education. And kids who get free school meals don’t have to do anything different to the kids who pay. Their thumbprint accesses their account. Nobody has any idea if their account has been topped up by the government or by their parents. Very often it’s both. Your argument is moot. Only 7% of the population can afford to go to private school so by definition they are amongst the wealthiest. I don't asumme anything I said they are more likely, because wealth buys wealth!! If you can afford to put your children into that privileged circle you would. Because you'll know the future journalists, MPs, directors and like it or not the work place is all about connections. Ensuring all children are fed and then attain a certain level of education is surely better the whole of population and especially seeing as they'll be paying for my dotage. But hey, if starving children is your thing
A month every year some children are forbidden from eating at school.
They aren't starved though are they, it's abstination rather then actual starvation.
You better hope you don't need an op during that month"Well that is subjective. And what has someone needing an op got to do with children being forbidden from eating school meals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Given that the UKs debt increased by a million million pounds between 2020 and 2024 it'll take them more than a year to get it under control " A massive chunk of that was Covid and lockdowns. And they ain’t gonna get borrowing under control by increasing it by at least £119 billion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock" This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you." Even the guardian? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jun/12/uk-economy-shrinks-firms-hit-by-higher-taxes-and-trump-trade-war | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you." And let’s see what impact the employer NI increases have had when the the next 2 quarters are declared. It’s been an up and down year regarding actual GDP compared to forecasts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you." Why the GB news version? Is it because it does not show the government in a good light. I have not seen that channel for a while but maybe time to return. The economy was the fastest growing just before labour took over. They managed to loose that momentum and in April they reported a 0.3% decline year on year. Anyway my post was more about pointing out that I was surprised that labour targeted those that they have because up until now I would not associated them with such things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think you realise how hard it is in the UK at the moment. Children are going to school hungry because people can't afford food. So we can either make the case to make businesses pay better wages - I'm all for. Or while the Thatcherite creed exists and we can't touch businesses and millionaires we have to help families by making school as cheap as possible with food and uniform I’m aware. People can only be paid based on the value they bring to the business, within the constraints of keeping that business profitable. Increases in pay without increasing productivity means increased prices. You just end up back where you started from, unless you reduce income tax. You can think what you like about Thatcher but the basic rate of tax fell by 8% during the first two terms of her government " It's not the 70s or the 80s. I don't disagree that tax reduction gets things growing further when you have a state that work. The state doesn't work and needs money. Prior to Thatcher you'd had a paternalistic conservative This is the opposite, you now need to swing back to a paternal state, people need to feel safe at work, people need to feel safe that if they lost their job someone would help them get another. People need to feel safe of they lost their home theirs safety bounce. But alass austerity has neutered this country | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The state doesn't work and needs money. And this statement is why things will never improve. Just throwing money at a problem rather than addressing the fundamental issues is why our tax burden is at record levels. " And to give a recent example of complete inefficiency. Had to see a NHS consultant through my private insurance (yes, I am lucky to be able to pay for it). He had a secretary at each hospital he works at, 5 and a private secretary. None of the secretaries have access to his diary other than the hospital that they are at so no joined up collaboration. None work beyond 3pm and all claim to be too busy to deal with patients. Average salary of £30-35k so cost to the tax payer of the 53,000 consultants assuming they all have 5 hospitals is £9bn. Just a suggestion from the private sector (and yes, it works). One secretary per consultant covering all NHS hospitals, paid £65-75k, a £4bn to £6bn saving right there and better patient service. And anyone who says it can't be done, in the private sector one secretary often covers 4 to 6 people, all incredibly busy, travelling etc. Just a thought. And when I spoke to the consultant and suggested this he totally agreed and admitted he couldn't even discipline his secretaries for what he agreed was an abject failure in their duties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you. Why the GB news version? Is it because it does not show the government in a good light. I have not seen that channel for a while but maybe time to return. The economy was the fastest growing just before labour took over. They managed to loose that momentum and in April they reported a 0.3% decline year on year. Anyway my post was more about pointing out that I was surprised that labour targeted those that they have because up until now I would not associated them with such things. " 0.1% contraction for May. Budget for growth working out well then.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The state doesn't work and needs money. And this statement is why things will never improve. Just throwing money at a problem rather than addressing the fundamental issues is why our tax burden is at record levels. And to give a recent example of complete inefficiency. Had to see a NHS consultant through my private insurance (yes, I am lucky to be able to pay for it). He had a secretary at each hospital he works at, 5 and a private secretary. None of the secretaries have access to his diary other than the hospital that they are at so no joined up collaboration. None work beyond 3pm and all claim to be too busy to deal with patients. Average salary of £30-35k so cost to the tax payer of the 53,000 consultants assuming they all have 5 hospitals is £9bn. Just a suggestion from the private sector (and yes, it works). One secretary per consultant covering all NHS hospitals, paid £65-75k, a £4bn to £6bn saving right there and better patient service. And anyone who says it can't be done, in the private sector one secretary often covers 4 to 6 people, all incredibly busy, travelling etc. Just a thought. And when I spoke to the consultant and suggested this he totally agreed and admitted he couldn't even discipline his secretaries for what he agreed was an abject failure in their duties." i think that is porkie pies unless it's a thing particular to your local english NHS trust. i know quite a few consultant secretaries and they ALL are secretary to 5 separate consultants in the relevant department. it's also highly unlikley due to existing contractual rules that a consultant is spread across 5 different hospitals in 5 different trusts so the assertion that they are unable to access diaries is not believable in any way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved? Some things, like the public sector pay rises, downturn in the economy, ongoing strikes and failing to tackle the small boat crossings I expected. What was more eye opening was the group's they ended up targeting. Before this government I would not link the labour party with attacks on pensioners, farmers and the sick. I don't recall any of these mentioned by them pre election so came as quite a shock This is definitely the GBNews version. Meanwhile, "The UK economy experienced a growth spurt in the first quarter of 2025, exceeding initial expectations with a 0.7% increase in GDP." The economy isn't for doing as badly as the media would tell you. Why the GB news version? Is it because it does not show the government in a good light. I have not seen that channel for a while but maybe time to return. The economy was the fastest growing just before labour took over. They managed to loose that momentum and in April they reported a 0.3% decline year on year. Anyway my post was more about pointing out that I was surprised that labour targeted those that they have because up until now I would not associated them with such things. 0.1% contraction for May. Budget for growth working out well then. "Yep, another set of poor figures, but not to worry as economic growth is the governments number 1 priority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now we are faced with an environment where it looks like the incentives to work hard and save will be taken away with the ability to pass your hard earned cash onto family massively reduced. Will reduce productivity and will just compound the problems we have. Not a good combination. A total mess." Looks that way Pensioners, farmers, disabled, allotments and now whoever’s left | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now we are faced with an environment where it looks like the incentives to work hard and save will be taken away with the ability to pass your hard earned cash onto family massively reduced. Will reduce productivity and will just compound the problems we have. Not a good combination. A total mess. Looks that way Pensioners, farmers, disabled, allotments and now whoever’s left " I think Reeves wants everyone to spend their savings so that they get their 20% out of it in VAT and the additional spending makes the economy grow, so they can claim to have grown the economy. With no thought to the effect it will have on the banking system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Assisted dying Decriminalising abortion Workers rights improved Free school meals Changed fiscal rules so they can invest in infrastructure projects 👍 Good stuff " Facilitating the killing of the vulnerable in society is not to be seen as an achievement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.”" And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.” And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. " Given that we have lost 160,000 jobs in the past year because Labour made employing people more expensive, is there a reason why you think making employing people even more expensive won’t lead to even more job losses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.” And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. Given that we have lost 160,000 jobs in the past year because Labour made employing people more expensive, is there a reason why you think making employing people even more expensive won’t lead to even more job losses?" I mean, let's assume Tesco have a minimum staffing level beneath which they can't actually do business. They can't just keep laying people off. Some people feel that a company that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage shouldn't be in business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit ..." That's the operating profit, i.e it doesn't take account of staffing costs. The actual profit was £1.63bn, from a revenue of £63.6bn, so a profit margin of 2.6%. they're not exactly screwing the country. "Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered ..." They do pay the Living Wage. There's already a law that makes them do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I’m on the living wage, it’s a crock of shit!" Hopefully your hero will change all that for you after his massive victory which you keep publicising on his behalf! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I’m on the living wage, it’s a crock of shit! Hopefully your hero will change all that for you after his massive victory which you keep publicising on his behalf!" When he changes the amount I can earn without paying income tax to £20,000, it will feel like a proper pay rise. Excellent stuff that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Large scale debt which is mounting and nothing to show for it. Enormous and unilateral pay rises for public sector workers costing 11billion, signed off and agreed before the impact to the economy was known and budgeted for. Division and debt driven through failure and u-turns, which I expect to see a lot more of. Playing with the fiscal rules, by allowing student loans to be taken off headline debt so it can be borrowed against. This created a 73billion debt with no returns on the 50billion borrowed. Countless sleepless nights for many of the countries most vulnerable people. Scandals that we thought only the tories were capable of, I expect a lot more of that to come. And yet the economy has kept growing Lets talk about that in October. Lols, let's not talk about reality as we have it today.....ok!! I’m not going to debate where the economy is headed until we actually get there. Speculating now would be pointless especially if you’re only willing to acknowledge outcomes once they’re undeniable. Let’s revisit this conversation in Q4 when we can assess the real impact with facts, not assumptions. I’ll look forward to it. But we can talk about Q3 & 4 2024 and Q1 2025 having grown and in Q1 2025 it was the fastest growing economy in the G7 as fact? Much of that growth came from public sector wage settlements and heavy borrowing, neither of which have delivered any real return. The picture won’t be clear until those temporary boosts fade. The underlying structural issues rising debt and the consequences of manipulating fiscal rules also haven’t surfaced fully yet. But they’re likely to come into sharper focus in Q4, along with the economic impact of those short term boosts above. Surely the past 14 years have proved that starving the economy from investment doesn't work only leads to crumbling infrastructure and poorer living standards. Investing in public infrastructure is a good thing you know for the public not your darling millionaires You’re telling me a lot about your view of the situation, but not much about what’s actually playing out. This is exactly why I suggested we wait until October, when we will be dealing with the real outcomes, not assumptions, promises, or political slogans. Let’s pick it up then and look at the actuals, not the narrative that has been pumped out. What's playing out is, NHS waiting lists are coming down. The asylum backlog is coming down, people have autonomy over when they die, women aren't going to be prosecuted over having an abortion, people are safer in the workplace, children will be going less hungry at schools." were women getting prosecuted for having abortions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.” And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. Given that we have lost 160,000 jobs in the past year because Labour made employing people more expensive, is there a reason why you think making employing people even more expensive won’t lead to even more job losses? I mean, let's assume Tesco have a minimum staffing level beneath which they can't actually do business. They can't just keep laying people off. Some people feel that a company that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage shouldn't be in business." So now you are advocating that all 300,000 odd Tesco employees are put out of work? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Folk are openly talking about civil war against the government. We guess that's a start. :D" This sentiment was brewing under the tories, Labour have attacked vulnerable groups and it’s a race to the bottom for them. Less than four years to the general election and probably a recession, more cuts and more tax rises before then. The election will be won by the party that stops the small boats so that’s Labour out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Folk are openly talking about civil war against the government. We guess that's a start. :D This sentiment was brewing under the tories, Labour have attacked vulnerable groups and it’s a race to the bottom for them. Less than four years to the general election and probably a recession, more cuts and more tax rises before then. The election will be won by the party that stops the small boats so that’s Labour out. " Don't you mean 'the party who say that they will stop the small boats, in order to win the election'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.” And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. Given that we have lost 160,000 jobs in the past year because Labour made employing people more expensive, is there a reason why you think making employing people even more expensive won’t lead to even more job losses? I mean, let's assume Tesco have a minimum staffing level beneath which they can't actually do business. They can't just keep laying people off. Some people feel that a company that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage shouldn't be in business." Supermarkets predominantly sell items people have to buy. Food, toiletries, cleaning supplies etc. The market sector by definition is very stable. The supermarkets are competing with each other to get a bigger share of money that the public will spend no matter what. You think Tesco should cover the £600 million in universal credit? Tesco last reported a net profit of £575 million from a turnover of just under £65 billion. That’s less than 1% Debts on the balance sheet exceed £13 billion. I didn’t delve into the debt figures but I’d imagine much of this is from the purchase of land to build new stores and buying vehicles for home delivery. Basically things that create jobs. So a company making less than 1% net profit has been hit with a 1.2% increase in national insurance and a 6.7% increase in the minimum wage. Sainsbury’s forecast that this would cost them an extra £100m and they are smaller than Tesco. Also, Tesco employ thousands of part time workers who have children. Some only working 16 hours a week around school times. If they didn’t get UC topping up their wages they wouldn’t be working at all, thus costing us even more money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit ... That's the operating profit, i.e it doesn't take account of staffing costs. The actual profit was £1.63bn, from a revenue of £63.6bn, so a profit margin of 2.6%. they're not exactly screwing the country. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered ... They do pay the Living Wage. There's already a law that makes them do so." Operating profit does include staff costs! And it's a tricky one, a company making either 1.7bn or 4bn but effectively being subsidised by the state to the tune of £600m surely isn't a long term sustainable model. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"ONS director of economic statistics Liz McKeown said…. “The number of employees on payroll has now fallen in 10 of the last 12 months, with these falls concentrated in hospitality and retail. “Job vacancies, likewise, have continued to fall, also driven by fewer opportunities in these industries.” And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit where 50% of the workforce is getting universal credit costing £600m per year. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered before going again after middle income tax payers. Given that we have lost 160,000 jobs in the past year because Labour made employing people more expensive, is there a reason why you think making employing people even more expensive won’t lead to even more job losses? I mean, let's assume Tesco have a minimum staffing level beneath which they can't actually do business. They can't just keep laying people off. Some people feel that a company that can't afford to pay its employees a living wage shouldn't be in business. Supermarkets predominantly sell items people have to buy. Food, toiletries, cleaning supplies etc. The market sector by definition is very stable. The supermarkets are competing with each other to get a bigger share of money that the public will spend no matter what. You think Tesco should cover the £600 million in universal credit? Tesco last reported a net profit of £575 million from a turnover of just under £65 billion. That’s less than 1% Debts on the balance sheet exceed £13 billion. I didn’t delve into the debt figures but I’d imagine much of this is from the purchase of land to build new stores and buying vehicles for home delivery. Basically things that create jobs. So a company making less than 1% net profit has been hit with a 1.2% increase in national insurance and a 6.7% increase in the minimum wage. Sainsbury’s forecast that this would cost them an extra £100m and they are smaller than Tesco. Also, Tesco employ thousands of part time workers who have children. Some only working 16 hours a week around school times. If they didn’t get UC topping up their wages they wouldn’t be working at all, thus costing us even more money. " If your point is that the business model of large chain supermarkets is dysfunctional, you'll get no argument from me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit ... That's the operating profit, i.e it doesn't take account of staffing costs. The actual profit was £1.63bn, from a revenue of £63.6bn, so a profit margin of 2.6%. they're not exactly screwing the country. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered ... They do pay the Living Wage. There's already a law that makes them do so. Operating profit does include staff costs! And it's a tricky one, a company making either 1.7bn or 4bn but effectively being subsidised by the state to the tune of £600m surely isn't a long term sustainable model." That is a twist on the view point. Tesco are not being subsidised, some of the people who work there are for many differing reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yet we have the likes of Tesco making £4bn profit ... That's the operating profit, i.e it doesn't take account of staffing costs. The actual profit was £1.63bn, from a revenue of £63.6bn, so a profit margin of 2.6%. they're not exactly screwing the country. Maybe some structural reform to ensure the private sector is paying a living wage should be considered ... They do pay the Living Wage. There's already a law that makes them do so. Operating profit does include staff costs! And it's a tricky one, a company making either 1.7bn or 4bn but effectively being subsidised by the state to the tune of £600m surely isn't a long term sustainable model. That is a twist on the view point. Tesco are not being subsidised, some of the people who work there are for many differing reasons. " I get the nuance and the points made around part time staff etc. And people working is far better for society than people not working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s been achieved?" It's beeb a right shambles. People voted for change and got more of the same.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If your point is that the business model of large chain supermarkets is dysfunctional, you'll get no argument from me." Business is a complex beast. Without it there is no society but some people seem to think making money is the worst crime there is. I’m not sure I’d choose the word “dysfunctional” and as pretty much everyone buys from these businesses at some point with most doing the big food shop at one of them all the time, they must be meeting the demands of their target market. But I do question the power they exert over farmers to control prices. In the interests of keeping prices in their stores low of course. I can’t remember the figures but I spoke to a dairy farmer once whose daughter’s wedding I was photographing and they talked about how they were barely above break even. They sold to Asda but all the big boys do the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If your point is that the business model of large chain supermarkets is dysfunctional, you'll get no argument from me. Business is a complex beast. Without it there is no society but some people seem to think making money is the worst crime there is. " I think people who think making money is a crime are in fact vanishingly rare. I think what people object to is businesses who dominate an entire sector, exert crucifying pressure on their suppliers, use public money to subsidise their workforce, avoid as much tax as possible, declare billions in profits and then cry poverty when it comes time to improve living standards for their non-executive employees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If your point is that the business model of large chain supermarkets is dysfunctional, you'll get no argument from me. Business is a complex beast. Without it there is no society but some people seem to think making money is the worst crime there is. I think people who think making money is a crime are in fact vanishingly rare. I think what people object to is businesses who dominate an entire sector, exert crucifying pressure on their suppliers, use public money to subsidise their workforce, avoid as much tax as possible, declare billions in profits and then cry poverty when it comes time to improve living standards for their non-executive employees." We are partly in agreement here. As I said, the power they have to control the prices of goods purchased from farmers for example, is certainly detrimental to the farmers. Which is one of the reasons I was surprised when Rachel Reeves decided to increase taxes on that sector. But that’s another topic. Some of your thoughts on peoples attitudes towards “big business” is more the type of person I was referring to, I was just a little creative with my language. But when some people look at big business they only look at the big picture and not the details. Such and such a number of people working for supermarkets are receiving so many millions in UC. The numbers may be true but as I said earlier, how many are part time workers with children? We used to have a situation where people either worked or they received benefits. Hundreds of thousands of people “couldn’t afford” to take up a part time job offer because they would lose money. Being financially worse off in work than on benefits should never happen. It still does on occasions perhaps but the system we have now helps employers employ more flexibly and helps employees work more flexibly. That’s a good thing. Secondly, people are hypocrites. I can guarantee that many of the people who moan about the tech giants such as Google, Meta, Apple etc not paying tax here, use their services. How many people scream about the wealth of Jeff Bezos have an Amazon prime account? Or purchase from them on a regular basis rather than shopping in a local high street. How many moan about Tesco shop at the local farm shop instead? Probably less than 1%. We discussed Tesco profit earlier, less than 1% net. They’d get a better return on a standard rate savings account. And they could save the hassle of having to employ over 100,000 people and dodge all the grief on FB. Tesco do not control who is entitled to benefits and who isn’t. They offer jobs and people take them. The rest is between the government and the worker. Some people have 3 part time jobs with three different companies and don’t claim any benefits. Again it a little hypocritical to say you’re in favour of workers rights, In favour of supporting people on low incomes and then complain when people who exercise those rights and have a low incomes, need support. As for tax avoidance. I’d suggest any evidence of this is sent to HMRC for investigation. Everyone and every business should pay the tax they are liable for. Your final point was living standards. Not sure I get what you mean. My living standards are based on my household income which is totally within my control. I can do any job that an employer would think I’m suitable for. My suitability for a job is 100% within my control, outside of a couple of exceptions such as professional sports MP, working Royal etc. I can get more qualifications, I can volunteer to gain experience, I can do all sorts to improve my earning potential. An employment contract is an agreement between the employer who will provide a certain wage/salary and benefits in exchange for a certain amount of your time and commitment. There are companies such as Starbucks who i believe could easily pay more and probably should. Their staff work their ass off, especially at motorway services. But Starbucks won’t because they have no shortage of applicants. Basic supply and demand. But there are also companies going out of business right now because of the increase in minimum wage and NI. It’s a fine balance. As I said earlier, Sainsburys said it was gonna cost them an extra £100 million. Their operating profit is £1billion. So that’s 10% of it gone. Sainsbury’s is probably in a better position than Tesco as they have a much lower level of debt. But Tesco has a much bigger market share. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has devised "The Reverse Midas Touch". Everything they do turns to shit." What exactly is the evidence for this? Opinion pieces in the right wing media and loud pronouncements by delivery nurse of Brexit does not actually stand up to real life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has devised "The Reverse Midas Touch". Everything they do turns to shit." Finally we found something they are good at. They should look on the bright side. Turning things to shit would be helpful for farmers, should the MP's be in need of a job in the future | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has devised "The Reverse Midas Touch". Everything they do turns to shit." Reeves king Midas, has a certain ring to it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Labour has devised "The Reverse Midas Touch". Everything they do turns to shit. Finally we found something they are good at. They should look on the bright side. Turning things to shit would be helpful for farmers, should the MP's be in need of a job in the future " Clearly know nothing, getting rid of excess shit is actually a problem. Spreading it too heavy and it runs into the water ways | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma! "Cool story bro. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma! "What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach. Not sure what's funny about that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that. "What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house."Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
"It's funny because they are hypocrites | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites "So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools? I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation. "The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school."We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school. The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'. "If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all."I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties". I'm leaving it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties".
I'm leaving it there.
"The problem is with the smugness of lefties themselves who pretend to be morally superior but are clearly not. I'm leaving it there too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that. "Ditto the hard working family's that now can't get the best education for their kids because Rachel from complaints has vindictively taxed them out of the market. What is funny is that a virtue signalling leftie who ended a friendship over a private school then moved house so that their kid could get into a better one, came unstuck because of Rachels's policy that they supported. Yep. Great Karma. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all."It is a very true story. I could have put a bit more detail but the story was related by someone very close to me. That is as much detail as I want to give. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties".
I'm leaving it there.
The problem is with the smugness of lefties themselves who pretend to be morally superior but are clearly not.
I'm leaving it there too."
Which was the whole point of me posting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties".
I'm leaving it there.
The problem is with the smugness of lefties themselves who pretend to be morally superior but are clearly not.
I'm leaving it there too.
Which was the whole point of me posting it."Such morals to poke fun at an unfortunate situation. Why would anyone expect any different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties".
I'm leaving it there.
The problem is with the smugness of lefties themselves who pretend to be morally superior but are clearly not.
I'm leaving it there too.
Which was the whole point of me posting it.
Such morals to poke fun at an unfortunate situation. Why would anyone expect any different. "MORALS? UNFORTUATE SITUATION? Nothing unfortunate about it. They pilloried someone for doing the best for their kid then came unstuck when their pious little scheme unraveled. No sympathy and yes Karma. Morals. Oh right, it's taking the moral high ground to cancel someone for doing their best then try to sneak in the back door while polishing their halo. No morals whatsoever and the hypocrisy is astounding. Like most lefties morals are either fake or disposable depending on circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
I agree. What is has done though, is shown the smugness of people who talk about "lefties".
I'm leaving it there.
The problem is with the smugness of lefties themselves who pretend to be morally superior but are clearly not.
I'm leaving it there too.
Which was the whole point of me posting it.
Such morals to poke fun at an unfortunate situation. Why would anyone expect any different.
MORALS? UNFORTUATE SITUATION?
Nothing unfortunate about it. They pilloried someone for doing the best for their kid then came unstuck when their pious little scheme unraveled. No sympathy and yes Karma.
Morals. Oh right, it's taking the moral high ground to cancel someone for doing their best then try to sneak in the back door while polishing their halo. No morals whatsoever and the hypocrisy is astounding.
Like most lefties morals are either fake or disposable depending on circumstances.
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's fascinating how so many right-wingers talk about those on the left as having lower moral standards than themselves. I think there's a term for this - it's called virtue signalling. " There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself." LOL. You are literally signalling that you are morally superior. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself." 😂😂😂 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself. LOL. You are literally signalling that you are morally superior." Maybe. Pretty much every political argument is a type of virtue signalling. It's worse when someone is being dishonest about one's virtues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's fascinating how so many right-wingers talk about those on the left as having lower moral standards than themselves. I think there's a term for this - it's called virtue signalling. " Nah, it's just bollocks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself. LOL. You are literally signalling that you are morally superior. Maybe. Pretty much every political argument is a type of virtue signalling. It's worse when someone is being dishonest about one's virtues. " Let's not forget the weird paradigm where those on the right are comfortable to advertise their explicit amorality while criticising the left for acting according to the kind of values we see as objectively virtuous, like kindness and generosity and tolerance and selflessness. A recent example of this is boat people, where the left's broad position is that it's a humanitarian crisis we should try to mitigate, whereas the right's broad position is that it's an invasion we should fight. That's where the term "virtue-signalling" comes from. When the position of the left is objectively morally superior to that of the right - as is so frequently the case - the right have to fall back on claiming that the left have only adopted the position performatively. Often it becomes clear that the right accuse the left of "virtue-signalling" because they literally can't fathom that someone would sincerely want to do something virtuous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
It is a very true story. I could have put a bit more detail but the story was related by someone very close to me.
That is as much detail as I want to give."You should know any story that makes lefties look like hypocrites can’t possibly be true. They are above reproach and know everything. If you lean even slightly to the right you are just a liar making stuff up and labour councillors will be round to deliver sentence. Eventually the dictionary will change the definition of hate crime to be disagreeing with a leftie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is not signalling virtues whether one has them or not There is signalling virtues one really has There is signalling virtues one doesn't have The third category is where the left wingers belong. Pointing that out isn't virtue signalling in itself. LOL. You are literally signalling that you are morally superior." You’re signalling that you’re a Russian agent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just had a very funny story related to me. A rather smug leftie couple stopped speaking to someone I know because he sent his son to private school. However they had moved house to get their son into the catchment area of a high performing grammar school. Just as their son was up for selection it turned out that the grammar school has shrunk its catchment area because of the high influx of former private school kids post VAT. They were now outside. Karma!
What I get from this, is that a family wanted the best education for their child, and now their school of choice is out of reach.
Not sure what's funny about that.
What's funny is that the leftie couple didn't realise "wanting the best education for their child" was exactly what the other couple who sent their kid to private schools did too. Housing in catchment areas are more expensive. So what one couple paid to the private school, the other couple paid to the catchment area house.
Ohhhh! So it's funny because the couple were allegedly left leaning in their political views. If they had been right leaning it would have been just as funny?
It's funny because they are hypocrites
So, left leaning people can't aspire to get their children into good schools?
I'm not getting the hypocrisy, just a smug right leaning attitude to a situation.
The hypocrisy of sneering at people sending their kids to private school and going on to move to an expensive area so that they can send their kids to grammar school.
We have no evidence, other than third party hearsay, of the situation. Take away the bias and you are left with a child unable to access a good school.
The hypocrisy was created by political bias of the people regaling the 'story'.
If you want to question the amount of truth in the story, we might even assume that family or a child never existed. There is no point in talking about it at all.
It is a very true story. I could have put a bit more detail but the story was related by someone very close to me.
That is as much detail as I want to give.
You should know any story that makes lefties look like hypocrites can’t possibly be true. They are above reproach and know everything. If you lean even slightly to the right you are just a liar making stuff up and labour councillors will be round to deliver sentence.
Eventually the dictionary will change the definition of hate crime to be disagreeing with a leftie. "Actually, the definition of a hate crime is in legislation, five protected characteristics. There has to be a crime, fuelled by prejudice to one or more of those characteristics for something to be recorded as a hate crime. Not sure how easy it would be to change the legislation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Eventually the dictionary will change the definition of hate crime to be disagreeing with a leftie. " Always this fantasy of ongoing persecution at the hands of some notional left-wing establishment determined to oppress the views of the poor embattled right. Nobody's preventing you from airing your opinions, buddy. Don't confuse a handful of individuals pointing out when your ideas are suspect with institutional censorship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Eventually the dictionary will change the definition of hate crime to be disagreeing with a leftie. Always this fantasy of ongoing persecution at the hands of some notional left-wing establishment determined to oppress the views of the poor embattled right. Nobody's preventing you from airing your opinions, buddy. Don't confuse a handful of individuals pointing out when your ideas are suspect with institutional censorship." The US Department of State’s 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in the UK highlighted a deteriorating human rights position in the UK, including serious restrictions on freedom of expression and rising antisemitic incidents. I’m sure there are plenty of people in North Korea who think they live in a free country, if that’s what they’ve been conditioned to think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let's not forget the weird paradigm where those on the right are comfortable to advertise their explicit amorality while criticising the left for acting according to the kind of values we see as objectively virtuous, like kindness and generosity and tolerance and selflessness. " The right doesn't always signal amorality. If you care about an issue, you do something about it. Asking other people to do something about it doesn't make you morally any better. It's just signalling a virtue which you don't even have. " A recent example of this is boat people, where the left's broad position is that it's a humanitarian crisis we should try to mitigate, whereas the right's broad position is that it's an invasion we should fight. " Such a simplistic take in the problem. The right's view is that most of them are cheating the system. And the country isn't in a position to pay the economic and social cost. The left says they want to help them with other people's money. Again, wanting to help someone with other people's money doesn't make you any better. You are compassionate only when you pay money out of your own pocket for the causes you care about. Anyone can just talk about how other people should help other people. " That's where the term "virtue-signalling" comes from. When the position of the left is objectively morally superior to that of the right - as is so frequently the case - the right have to fall back on claiming that the left have only adopted the position performatively. " See above. The position of the left isn't objectively superior. It's just pretending to be superior. Open your own wallet to prove you are superior. " Often it becomes clear that the right accuse the left of "virtue-signalling" because they literally can't fathom that someone would sincerely want to do something virtuous." Republican supporters in the US are known to donate more for charities than democrat supporters, even after accounting for differences in income. When a right winger sees a cause they want to help, they do what they can to help and move on with their lives, unlike the left who would open their own wallets and cry about how the government and other people aren't helping that cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let's not forget the weird paradigm where those on the right are comfortable to advertise their explicit amorality while criticising the left for acting according to the kind of values we see as objectively virtuous, like kindness and generosity and tolerance and selflessness. The right doesn't always signal amorality. If you care about an issue, you do something about it. Asking other people to do something about it doesn't make you morally any better. It's just signalling a virtue which you don't even have. A recent example of this is boat people, where the left's broad position is that it's a humanitarian crisis we should try to mitigate, whereas the right's broad position is that it's an invasion we should fight. Such a simplistic take in the problem. The right's view is that most of them are cheating the system. And the country isn't in a position to pay the economic and social cost. The left says they want to help them with other people's money. Again, wanting to help someone with other people's money doesn't make you any better. You are compassionate only when you pay money out of your own pocket for the causes you care about. Anyone can just talk about how other people should help other people. That's where the term "virtue-signalling" comes from. When the position of the left is objectively morally superior to that of the right - as is so frequently the case - the right have to fall back on claiming that the left have only adopted the position performatively. See above. The position of the left isn't objectively superior. It's just pretending to be superior. Open your own wallet to prove you are superior. Often it becomes clear that the right accuse the left of "virtue-signalling" because they literally can't fathom that someone would sincerely want to do something virtuous. Republican supporters in the US are known to donate more for charities than democrat supporters, even after accounting for differences in income. When a right winger sees a cause they want to help, they do what they can to help and move on with their lives, unlike the left who would open their own wallets and cry about how the government and other people aren't helping that cause." Your by now frankly boring insistence that people who care about an issue should just pay privately to fix it is complete nonsense to anyone who understands the difference between a national government's ability to affect change and an individual's ability to affect change. Furthermore your equally boring insistence that the only evidence of real virtue is spending one's own money on the things one wishes to change is evidence not only of your extremely narrow view of what virtue is, but also of the fact you don't understand that public funds ARE our money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your by now frankly boring insistence that people who care about an issue should just pay privately to fix it is complete nonsense to anyone who understands the difference between a national government's ability to affect change and an individual's ability to affect change. " You came up with this boring excuse in a different thread. You can always donate to organisations like the United Nations. Going by the number of people on the internet who pretend like they care about these issues, I am pretty sure there will be enough money. If you really cared, you will do that instead of just talking about it online all the time. I am saying this because I know of people who really care and do just that. " Furthermore your equally boring insistence that the only evidence of real virtue is spending one's own money on the things one wishes to change is evidence not only of your extremely narrow view of what virtue is, but also of the fact you don't understand that public funds ARE our money." Truth is mostly boring. What percentage of public fund do you contribute. 0.0000.... something? The rest is money contributed by someone else. What right do you have to decide which international humanitarian cause the rest of the public fund must go to? How about you spending your own money on the causes you care about and the rest of the people spending their money on the causes they care about? As I said before, tomorrow, I can also keep making posts on fab forums about how "we should all" help some random cause I heard about. Doesn't show anything about my virtue. If I am virtuous, I will give my own money for the cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your by now frankly boring insistence that people who care about an issue should just pay privately to fix it is complete nonsense to anyone who understands the difference between a national government's ability to affect change and an individual's ability to affect change. You came up with this boring excuse in a different thread. You can always donate to organisations like the United Nations. Going by the number of people on the internet who pretend like they care about these issues, I am pretty sure there will be enough money. If you really cared, you will do that instead of just talking about it online all the time. I am saying this because I know of people who really care and do just that. Furthermore your equally boring insistence that the only evidence of real virtue is spending one's own money on the things one wishes to change is evidence not only of your extremely narrow view of what virtue is, but also of the fact you don't understand that public funds ARE our money. Truth is mostly boring. What percentage of public fund do you contribute. 0.0000.... something? The rest is money contributed by someone else. What right do you have to decide which international humanitarian cause the rest of the public fund must go to? How about you spending your own money on the causes you care about and the rest of the people spending their money on the causes they care about? As I said before, tomorrow, I can also keep making posts on fab forums about how "we should all" help some random cause I heard about. Doesn't show anything about my virtue. If I am virtuous, I will give my own money for the cause. " Eventually you're going to run out of ways to say the same damn things over and over. Good to know that you think of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as "some random cause" though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Eventually you're going to run out of ways to say the same damn things over and over. " At least I am honest. " Good to know that you think of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as "some random cause" though." There are numerous causes out there. I can pick one randomly out of it. Doesn't mean I am implying anything about the impact. I understand that you are pumped up by what the media feeds you. But there are numerous problems in the world as bad or even worse than Gaza. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your by now frankly boring insistence that people who care about an issue should just pay privately to fix it is complete nonsense to anyone who understands the difference between a national government's ability to affect change and an individual's ability to affect change." You know how the left could really effect change? Start up a group to prove the level of public feeling. Every week they nominate a charity, and on "Fundraising Friday", they all donate £1 to that charity. The charities would publish the figure received, and everyone could see that it's possible to make big changes with just a small donation. If your view of the number of people on the left is correct, you'd soon be donating millions of pounds each week, and making a shining example to those selfish bastards on the right. Why isn't this already happening? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Eventually you're going to run out of ways to say the same damn things over and over. At least I am honest. Good to know that you think of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as "some random cause" though. There are numerous causes out there. I can pick one randomly out of it. Doesn't mean I am implying anything about the impact. I understand that you are pumped up by what the media feeds you. But there are numerous problems in the world as bad or even worse than Gaza. " So in your view anyone who believes the UK would be correct to intervene and mitigate the suffering of Gazan children is just "pumped up by what the media feeds them"? So how, out of interest, have you come across the causes you send your loose change to? Do you not rely on any media to keep you abreast of the causes you send your presumably massive donations to? How much are we talking, by the way? Since you're so adamant that personal donations are preferable to international intervention, how much cash can the kids you can be bothered to give a shit about expect to get from you this month? And again, you are definitely correct there are other problems than Gaza in the world, and some of them may even be worse. But I still don't see how this whataboutery justifies you wading into a thread about a cross-party initiative to offer medical aid to victims of war and accuse everyone in favour of virtue-signalling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your by now frankly boring insistence that people who care about an issue should just pay privately to fix it is complete nonsense to anyone who understands the difference between a national government's ability to affect change and an individual's ability to affect change. You know how the left could really effect change? Start up a group to prove the level of public feeling. Every week they nominate a charity, and on "Fundraising Friday", they all donate £1 to that charity. The charities would publish the figure received, and everyone could see that it's possible to make big changes with just a small donation. If your view of the number of people on the left is correct, you'd soon be donating millions of pounds each week, and making a shining example to those selfish bastards on the right. Why isn't this already happening?" Or we could just support humanitarian government projects like the one discussed in this thread, while people like you continue to oppose it. Millions of pounds a week spent on good causes, people on the right proven selfish (like that needed more proof). As a bonus, people like you would absolutely lose your minds about all that money spent on foreign kids when it could be spent on whatever you're in favour of. Tax cuts for people way richer than you, at a guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So in your view anyone who believes the UK would be correct to intervene and mitigate the suffering of Gazan children is just "pumped up by what the media feeds them"? " Never said that. People have their own reasons to support different causes. If you believe that the Gaza issue is more important because you have been seeing a lot of videos from Gaza or for any other reason, fair enough. But no point in forcing others to spend their money on causes you are emotionally attached to. " So how, out of interest, have you come across the causes you send your loose change to? Do you not rely on any media to keep you abreast of the causes you send your presumably massive donations to? " I personally have lots of empathy for orphaned kids. Why I specifically care about that issue? I have my own reasons. My donations are around that cause. Is that the perfect cause everyone should care about? Not at all. I am aware that the others might not be too much fussed about this issue and may be more motivated about wars. " How much are we talking, by the way? " How much ever one can give. I am not the one judging others on this. If I were to start judging, I will question you first on why you are on a paid account on a swingers site instead of giving that cash to the kids in Gaza. Surely their lives are more important than your need to have sex with strangers? " Since you're so adamant that personal donations are preferable to international intervention, how much cash can the kids you can be bothered to give a shit about expect to get from you this month? " You can do international intervention through private funds. There are numerous organisations for that. " And again, you are definitely correct there are other problems than Gaza in the world, and some of them may even be worse. But I still don't see how this whataboutery justifies you wading into a thread about a cross-party initiative to offer medical aid to victims of war and accuse everyone in favour of virtue-signalling." If you and the others very vocal about the issue spend your own money, why would I wade into it? It's your personal choice and I would admire you for that. But if you are talking about taking other people's funds, then I will wade into it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Millions of pounds a week spent on good causes, people on the right proven selfish (like that needed more proof). As a bonus, people like you would absolutely lose your minds about all that money spent on foreign kids when it could be spent on whatever you're in favour of. Tax cuts for people way richer than you, at a guess." Isn't that an excellent reason to do it? Wouldn't that just show all those righties that they're outnumbered and should change their thinking? But if you get the government to do it, those righties will just keep on complaining that you lefties are all spending other people's money. If you take the lead and show that you are willing to spend your own money, you take that stick away from them, and prove that they're wrong about you. Why wouldn't you all do that? Not just to make a point, but to show people what collectivism can achieve, and to bring them over to your side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not the one judging others on this." If you genuinely believe that, your grasp on reality is even more tenuous than I thought. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Millions of pounds a week spent on good causes, people on the right proven selfish (like that needed more proof). As a bonus, people like you would absolutely lose your minds about all that money spent on foreign kids when it could be spent on whatever you're in favour of. Tax cuts for people way richer than you, at a guess. Isn't that an excellent reason to do it? Wouldn't that just show all those righties that they're outnumbered and should change their thinking? But if you get the government to do it, those righties will just keep on complaining that you lefties are all spending other people's money. If you take the lead and show that you are willing to spend your own money, you take that stick away from them, and prove that they're wrong about you. Why wouldn't you all do that? Not just to make a point, but to show people what collectivism can achieve, and to bring them over to your side." It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts. But it is a lot of fun to watch you say "prove us wrong by doing what we want instead of the things we don't like". What's that, reverse psychology or something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts." Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't that an excellent reason to do it? Wouldn't that just show all those righties that they're outnumbered and should change their thinking? But if you get the government to do it, those righties will just keep on complaining that you lefties are all spending other people's money. If you take the lead and show that you are willing to spend your own money, you take that stick away from them, and prove that they're wrong about you. Why wouldn't you all do that? Not just to make a point, but to show people what collectivism can achieve, and to bring them over to your side." The right would just complain about the left indulging in virtue siignalling. Besides charitable giving is a private matter and not something to boast about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not the one judging others on this. If you genuinely believe that, your grasp on reality is even more tenuous than I thought." You are out here online complaining about how others aren't giving out their money for causes you care about instead of doing something that really helps the causes you care about. And I am the one who doesn't have a good grasp of reality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts. Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here?" It's a lot of fun and extremely good for my self-esteem. "So much" effort would be a bit of an exaggeration, however. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not the one judging others on this. If you genuinely believe that, your grasp on reality is even more tenuous than I thought. You are out here online complaining about how others aren't giving out their money for causes you care about instead of doing something that really helps the causes you care about. And I am the one who doesn't have a good grasp of reality?" That's right, yeah. You are the one who doesn't have a good grasp of reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Besides charitable giving is a private matter and not something to boast about." I certainly agree with you there. But in the scheme I outline above, all of the participants would be anonymous. The week's chosen charity would announce the total number of donations, and the donors could feel quietly proud that they are doing a good thing, while the onlookers would realise the depth of feeling in the country. It might not change any minds, but at least we could all see who is in the minority. And if it turns out to be the case that £20m is getting given each week, the parties on the left will suddenly start to look a lot more electable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts." "Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here?" "It's a lot of fun and extremely good for my self-esteem." So you enjoy poking the bear with a stick and watching it dance for you. What a lovely ethical stance to take. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts. Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here? It's a lot of fun and extremely good for my self-esteem. So you enjoy poking the bear with a stick and watching it dance for you. What a lovely ethical stance to take." The bear is self-aware, is free to leave at any time and apparently enjoys making a spectacle of itself, so at worst it's an ethically neutral activity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts." "Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here?" "It's a lot of fun and extremely good for my self-esteem." "So you enjoy poking the bear with a stick and watching it dance for you. What a lovely ethical stance to take." "The bear is self-aware, is free to leave at any time and apparently enjoys making a spectacle of itself, so at worst it's an ethically neutral activity." Basing your own self worth on your ability to humiliate those you consider to be intellectually inferior is not an ethically neutral stance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's pretty well documented that those on the right don't change their thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no point in doing anything to try to change the opinions of those on the right because their opinions are impervious to facts. Then why are you putting so much effort into posting on here? It's a lot of fun and extremely good for my self-esteem. So you enjoy poking the bear with a stick and watching it dance for you. What a lovely ethical stance to take. The bear is self-aware, is free to leave at any time and apparently enjoys making a spectacle of itself, so at worst it's an ethically neutral activity. Basing your own self worth on your ability to humiliate those you consider to be intellectually inferior is not an ethically neutral stance." Did I say my self-worth was based on it? One can enjoy cake without eating it three times a day. And the draw isn't the intellectual inferiority per se. It's the type of person who always turns out to be intellectually inferior. Subtle difference, but ethics is all about the nuance, isn't it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
