news & politics:discussion

[mattiloy]

INSULATION FOR THE NATION!

TURBINE OR NOT TURBINE - THAT IS THE QUESTION?

CHARGE UP, CHARGE UP, SPEEED DOWN THE M6!

[steviewevie]

22 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Yeah.. so now that its 20bn or whatever, the tories are gonna lay off or what?

The folk that are gonna be raging about 28bn are also gonna be raging about 20bn spent on green stuff.

The folk that are gonna be buzzing about 28bn are gonna now mostly be raging about 20bn. Even though nobody has any idea about what either of those figures can actually buy.

Tbh i dont really get why politics is so often done like that. Salience is number 1 in any marketing message. 20bill here, 10bill there. Its utterly meaningless. Is it because they dont have any real ideas beyond spunking more dough on something than the other guys (or less if they want to appear to be more fiscally prudent with their spunk).

They're not going to mention any numbers...or qualify everything with fiscal rules.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

exactly, I'd rather have some ability to do things in retirement...

yep, my physical limitations are starting to hit me hard. wanna go spend some time on my brother's* super yaught in the med, in the summer but don't know if i can get myself there.

(* he works on it, doesn't own it).

Edited January 10, 2024 by Neil

[cellar]

1 hour ago, Barry Fish said:

Constant every day attack line number two...  you must be pretending you are a labour voter.  You are such a troll lol.

Funny thing is, he was replying to someone agreeing with me, when I was agreeing with someone else 😅 

So yeah, Ozanne has all 3 of us sussed by the sounds of it. Or he really is just pretending to be a Labour voter and is projecting!

[Guest]

You aren’t serious about politics if a random person on a message board can influence your vote. Someone is clearly a liar. 

[cellar]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You aren’t serious about politics if a random person on a message board can influence your vote. Someone is clearly a liar. 

Three people have expressed the same sentiment, so maybe there is something to it.

Also you don't get to decide if I'm serious about politics or not, I'm afraid - I think you know that though (maybe, hopefully).

[cellar]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Being serious about politics doesn't mean being dogmatic.

This is it in a nutshell really. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, cellar said:

Three people have expressed the same sentiment, so maybe there is something to it.

Also you don't get to decide if I'm serious about politics or not, I'm afraid - I think you know that though (maybe, hopefully).

Well if a random person can sway your vote then you aren’t really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway. 

[mattiloy]

43 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They're not going to mention any numbers...or qualify everything with fiscal rules.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2024 by mattiloy

[mattiloy]

Starmer streisand effected some figure nobody cared about into antagonising everyone. I have a feeling he’s going to be absolutely sh*t in an election campaign. He cant hack it.

[cellar]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Well if a random person can sway your vote then you aren’t really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway. 

You are incorrect, but you believe whatever makes you feel better.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, cellar said:

You are incorrect, but you believe whatever makes you feel better.

Sure I am…

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Starmer streisand effected some figure nobody cared about into antagonising everyone. I have a feeling he’s going to be absolutely sh*t in an election campaign. He cant hack it.

you keep writing him off...and yet...

[Guest]

If anyone it’s Sunak that’s gonna be dreadful in a campaign, he gets very defensive very quickly under any type of scrutiny. He was also awful in the Tory leadership campaign.

[philipsteak]

8 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Well if a random person can sway your vote then you aren’t really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway. 

What's the point of campaigning?

If a random person can turn up on your doorstep, talk to you for a bit and hand you a leaflet and sway your vote then you aren't really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

What's the point of campaigning?

If a random person can turn up on your doorstep, talk to you for a bit and hand you a leaflet and sway your vote then you aren't really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway.

A face to face conversation a bit different to a randomer on a message board and if that can potential sway you off voting then someone might not have been honest about who they were gonna vote for anyway. 

Edited January 11, 2024 by Ozanne

[Rufus Gwertigan]

52 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

What's the point of campaigning?

If a random person can turn up on your doorstep, talk to you for a bit and hand you a leaflet and sway your vote then you aren't really serious about the topic or were never gonna seriously vote for that party anyway.

I guess it would all depend on what they looked like for me. I am a sucker for a pretty face.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I didn't see the Post Office thingy on TV but there is something I don't understand. The CPS prosecuted around 50 cases and the rest were private prosecutions by the PO in the hundreds. Did this not appear unusual to anybody? Surely there would be some sort of oversight for fraud and when the cases increase 10 fold that should strike alarm bells.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

I didn't see the Post Office thingy on TV but there is something I don't understand. The CPS prosecuted around 50 cases and the rest were private prosecutions by the PO in the hundreds. Did this not appear unusual to anybody? Surely there would be some sort of oversight for fraud and when the cases increase 10 fold that should strike alarm bells.

Yeah, was mentioned...in that the post office didn't need to get the police involved as they could do the whole investigation themselves. Whole thing was crazy dodgy.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

I didn't see the Post Office thingy on TV but there is something I don't understand. The CPS prosecuted around 50 cases and the rest were private prosecutions by the PO in the hundreds. Did this not appear unusual to anybody? Surely there would be some sort of oversight for fraud and when the cases increase 10 fold that should strike alarm bells.

The problem is that the CPS was given falsified evidence so if that evidence at the time showed wrongdoing from the sub-postmasters then they had to take action. Falsified evidence was also given to Parliament which they debated in 2013 too. 

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

I didn't see the Post Office thingy on TV but there is something I don't understand. The CPS prosecuted around 50 cases and the rest were private prosecutions by the PO in the hundreds. Did this not appear unusual to anybody? Surely there would be some sort of oversight for fraud and when the cases increase 10 fold that should strike alarm bells.

Anyway you should watch it, as well as being the thing that everyone is talking about it is actually a well made drama with a really good cast...although Nadhim Zahawi playing himself is a bit weird.

[steviewevie]

 

[cellar]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

A face to face conversation a bit different to a randomer on a message board and if that can potential sway you off voting then someone might not have been honest about who they were gonna vote for anyway. 

The funny thing about this conversation thread is that you're actually just proving the original point even more 😅 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

So since I posted the actual announcement of the Labour Green Pledge yesterday we have:

Others posting it too
One person denying the absolutely obvious fact it has been changed/reduced
One person saying they will still get to 100% clean energy by 2030 even if they spend no money at all.

 

So, one person in cloud cuckoo land refusing to accept his beloved Labour party have rolled back on pledges and likely will continue to do so.

Personally my hopes are on a hung parliament with Labour the largest party so they are forced to work with the other progressive smaller parties for the common good. That means no votes are wasted votes as long as you vote for what you actually want - and when the usual suspects say not voting Labour is a vote for the Tories I shall just laugh as their nonsense (and I see it elsewhere) just drives any thoughts of voting Labour away.

A vote for  a party whose policies you do not believe in or want is a wasted vote - but there will be those who within 60 minutes will attack me for that as they simply think that 75 more years of Red then Blue then Red etc will actually make things change.

If you want real change then vote for real change - not just more of the same that has, and is, failing and will continue to fail.

Farewell one and all.

a hung parliament would be with lib dems, not sure if that would make any difference to clean energy policy, may make it more unlikely.

[steviewevie]