news & politics:discussion

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I mean it isn’t that’s the Tory media peddling lies. Labour have come time and time again to confirm their commitment to the policy. 

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

[steviewevie]

 

[Ozanne]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

So if they can achieve their aims by spending £18b (for arguments sake) will you be happy or does it have to be £28b?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

So if they can achieve their aims by spending £18b (for arguments sake) will you be happy or does it have to be £28b?

of course I will be happy...but I am not confident they will, and that is the point...it indicates they are less serious about it. Maybe it is the right choice politically because tories will attack them on it, or maybe tories will now attack them on looking indecisive and without a plan...

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Glad I'm not the only one who notices.

Also I find it rather off how I get warned for some posts by moderators but Neil, who is himself a moderator soon gets nasty with folks all the time.

I'll probably get warned for this post.

its not left wing to side with the warmongering rapists and baby killers. or even to back policies that won't work out well, like rail nationalisation. - cos chris grayling running the trains won't magically improve them.

[steviewevie]

Just now, Neil said:

its not left wing to side with the warmongering rapists and baby killers. or even to back policies that won't work out well, like rail nationalisation. - cos chris grayling running the trains won't magically improve them.

I guess they could get someone other than Chris Grayling to run them.

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

I guess they could get someone other than Chris Grayling to run them.

how about an expert from deutche rail?

[Neil]

46 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The amount spent was always a big part of that pledge, rightly or wrongly voters will see it as a uturn or watering down of this green new deal..it is an arbitrary number anyway, but Labour came up with it which I guess they're regretting , and now they're all over the shop and it's a gift for the Tories.

its a gift for the tory-enabling starmer haters.

[Neil]

On 2/2/2024 at 10:37 AM, Skip997 said:

 

Still can't clear the edit box.even posting doesn't lose it.

[Ozanne]

53 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

of course I will be happy...but I am not confident they will, and that is the point...it indicates they are less serious about it. Maybe it is the right choice politically because tories will attack them on it, or maybe tories will now attack them on looking indecisive and without a plan...

So why is £28b the magic number you feel confident with, is it because that’s the number the Tories have been touting?
It doesn’t indicate they are less serious on it at all, it means they want to show to the public that they are also committed to look after the economy as well as focus on the green policies. 

[Neil]

Lots of slagging off of the DUP in stormont today  finding every reason to criticise them except the real reason sinn fien being first minister.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

So why is £28b the magic number you feel confident with, is it because that’s the number the Tories have been touting?
It doesn’t indicate they are less serious on it at all, it means they want to show to the public that they are also committed to look after the economy as well as focus on the green policies. 

Labour came up with the number. 

[Neil]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Labour came up with the number. 

It's a random number.

[Ozanne]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Labour came up with the number. 

Yeah so why if they change that number won’t you?

[steviewevie]

 

[Nobody Interesting]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

So if they can achieve their aims by spending £18b (for arguments sake) will you be happy or does it have to be £28b?

ONS estimates show we need to spend £500 billion so good luck getting anything done on £28b or less.

When will you accept the policy has been watered down lots?

[Ozanne]

 

[steviewevie]

55 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

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

[Ozanne]

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.

[Ozanne]

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.