news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

55 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

that's actually a good article, not just blind support for what labour are doing...more a proposal...

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

that's actually a good article, not just blind support for what labour are doing...more a proposal...

Yeah it is, he’s not fixated on the cost which is good and can realise the full benefits of Labours plan. 

[Justiceforcedave]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yeah it is, he’s not fixated on the cost which is good and can realise the full benefits of Labours plan. 

I don't think anyone is especially fixated on the cost, more on the fact that it's a climbdown from the original pledge. Speaking truthfully, I think the main reason it gets such airtime in this thread is that you've staunchly denied that it's a climb down or that the policy has been watered down, and people find that frustrating because they feel like it very much is a climb down.

There is a social psychological theory called 'reactance' (also known as the boomerang effect) which says when someone takes a strong stance on something (let's use unconditional, critique-free support of a political party as an example) and expresses that stance to others, it often has the unintended consequence of making people strongly take the opposite stance to assert their own freedom of thought (in this case insisting that the political party has done something wrong, even if they fundamentally agree with the principals of that party and support them).

Guess what happens when that reactionary opposite stance is expressed? You guessed it, the original expresser doubles down on their stance and the merry dance continues over and over again.

This thread in a nut shell.

[Justiceforcedave]

You insist. They insist. You insist. They insist. Round and round we go!

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

I don't think anyone is especially fixated on the cost, more on the fact that it's a climbdown from the original pledge. Speaking truthfully, I think the main reason it gets such airtime in this thread is that you've staunchly denied that it's a climb down or that the policy has been watered down, and people find that frustrating because they feel like it very much is a climb down.

There is a social psychological theory called 'reactance' (also known as the boomerang effect) which says when someone takes a strong stance on something (let's use unconditional, critique-free support of a political party as an example) and expresses that stance to others, it often has the unintended consequence of making people strongly take the opposite stance to assert their own freedom of thought (in this case insisting that the political party has done something wrong, even if they fundamentally agree with the principals of that party and support them).

Guess what happens when that reactionary opposite stance is expressed? You guessed it, the original expresser doubles down on their stance and the merry dance continues over and over again.

This thread in a nut shell.

Also...it is a news story..it isn't just us talking about it.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Also...it is a news story..it isn't just us talking about it.

The same story every few days then a rebuttal shortly after. Almost like the stories are lies pushed by the media/Tories. 

[Justiceforcedave]

7 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Also...it is a news story..it isn't just us talking about it.

And this! But the same still applies when Ozanne responds.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The same story every few days then a rebuttal shortly after. Almost like the stories are lies pushed by the media/Tories. 

Like the guardian, independent, mirror, new statesman etc etc.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Like the guardian, independent, mirror, new statesman etc etc.

Yet the policy still stands, there is clearly an agenda from some trying to push Labour to get rid of the policy. They haven’t, the aims are still there and Labour will confirm funding after the next budget when they see how much damage the Tories do to the economy.

If the Tories take out x amount of headroom leaving Labour with no room then will you blame the Tories?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Yet the policy still stands, there is clearly an agenda from some trying to push Labour to get rid of the policy. They haven’t, the aims are still there and Labour will confirm funding after the next budget when they see how much damage the Tories do to the economy.

If the Tories take out x amount of headroom leaving Labour with no room then will you blame the Tories?

fair point...and that is a reason I guess labour will give.

But, the pledge has still changed (or is in process of changing). It isn't being made up by media/tories.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

fair point...and that is a reason I guess labour will give.

But, the pledge has still changed (or is in process of changing). It isn't being made up by media/tories.

As I’ve said, the funding by for it has been scaled back due to Liz Truss the goals of and the policy itself are still there.

[fraybentos1]

They won’t be able to achieve the same outcomes with way less money being put into the policy. 
 

Can that honestly be this hard to understand?

[steviewevie]

 

[Justiceforcedave]

20 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

“The Observer understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), Labour will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.”

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Justiceforcedave said:

“The Observer understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sticking to the overall drive to achieve clean energy by 2030), Labour will not seek to legislate on the creation of a new national care service in its first king’s speech.”

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying, funding scaled back but policy goals remain. 

[Justiceforcedave]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying, funding scaled back but policy goals remain. 

Original pledge changed. Goal remains. We got there in the end! 😎

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Justiceforcedave said:

Original pledge changed. Goal remains. We got there in the end! 😎

Nope. It’s backed up my points, the green policies are still there, they haven’t been scaled back. Sorry to disappoint you but Labour still have strong green policies in place. 

[Guest]

Imagine if this was Labour. 

[steviewevie]

they're going to get asked this a lot...they need to come up with a coherent answer...

 

Edited February 4, 2024 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

Looks like US/UK doing their best to prevent a wider conflict in the middle east.

[Neil]

On 2/3/2024 at 9:30 AM, steviewevie said:

Have to see how much influence of these groups Iran actually has...

They pay the bills and have big influence doesn't work the other way won't go to war for Iran.

[Justiceforcedave]

28 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

they're going to get asked this a lot...they need to come up with a coherent answer...

 

He should get Ozanne on the show, I'm sure Trevor would then be able to understand that the original pledge has not changed one bit and he could simply consult that for answers.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

they're going to get asked this a lot...they need to come up with a coherent answer...

 

They have one, you shared the article yourself the other day showing comments from Darren Jones.

It’s not new news that Labour aren’t going to be spending £28b a year on green energy, we’ve known that for ages. At this point the media are being difficult for the sake of it. 

Edited February 4, 2024 by Ozanne

[Neil]

its tough for today's youngsters, after a recent big trip to south america, my kid is off to LA for some more holidays.