UK Politics

[xxialac]

Just now, steviewevie said:

actually, I think I agree with this...but Polanski (or whoever) just needs to be a bit more careful, not first time he's got in a bit of bother with sharing posts.

 

I don't have much of a problem with Polanski, see his appeal, and for a while Greens were doing incredibly well relatively under his leadership and may well do again in the near future when everyone starts to f**king hate Burnham.  Not my cup of tea of course being a zionist neoliberal boomer centrist dad...but its nice for the woke kids to have someone.

Absolutely he needs to be less gung-ho and avoid mess ups which will ultimately only hurt his appeal and his cause.

 

I'm not convinced he'll recover from this recent pile-on however. He's lost all his momentum.

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

That sounds like whataboutery to me. Those Polanski supporters would be going crazy if it was the other way around. Just call it out as wrong and no excuses.

I'm not defending Polanski or the T shirt,  its the hypocrisy of Farage. There's too much of this from the progressives and the right.. You see it on the Palestine and Trans marches as much as the Tommy Robinson marches

[steviewevie]

Apparently we've gone to war with France because of Chris Philp.

[steviewevie]

 

 

[steviewevie]

This is f**ked up

Home Office used ‘AI hallucinated’ information to refuse asylum claim, judge suggests | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

[kaosmark2]

3 hours ago, xxialac said:

 

Farage has a long history of incitement.

Polanski does not.

 

Courts look at character when they reach decisions.

 

On the balance of probability, especially when accepting a 'share' of multiple images from a third party that included a photo where the words 'we're only making plans for Nigel' are in a tiny font, he or his aide simply didn't see that aspect or the image. 

 

It's a mistake but not malicious. We are human, we make mistakes.

I think it's yet another example of Polanski being a bit of an idiot, and this is as someone who's probably voting Green in next locals and GE.

 

I think Polanski is quick to react, which leads to stupid mistakes, slow to apologise, and sometimes insincere. I still think he's better than the rest (which is a pretty damning indictment), but I do find he gets defended in fairly weird ways.

 

I get his appeal, and like a lot of stuff on social media, the importance of what he retweets/shares gets exaggerated, but at what point should he adjust his habits (or instruct the junior staff) to be more careful?

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, xxialac said:

 

Farage has a long history of incitement.

Polanski does not.

 

Courts look at character when they reach decisions.

 

On the balance of probability, especially when accepting a 'share' of multiple images from a third party that included a photo where the words 'we're only making plans for Nigel' are in a tiny font, he or his aide simply didn't see that aspect or the image. 

 

It's a mistake but not malicious. We are human, we make mistakes.

Are you seriously saying if it was a low profile reform politician the view of Green supporters would be “we are human and all make mistakes “. You know as well as I do Green supporters would be outraged and rightfully so. People are way more forgiving of mistakes from people who share their own views, but it is pure double standards.

 

We have had people of different political persuasions murdered and need to be consistent. The bloke who wore the top is an idiot as is the person who took the photo and Polanski /his team for sharing it. There are no excuses here, everyone involved should apologise and learn.

[xxialac]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

Are you seriously saying if it was a low profile reform politician the view of Green supporters would be “we are human and all make mistakes “. You know as well as I do Green supporters would be outraged and rightfully so. People are way more forgiving of mistakes from people who share their own views, but it is pure double standards.

 

We have had people of different political persuasions murdered and need to be consistent. The bloke who wore the top is an idiot as is the person who took the photo and Polanski /his team for sharing it. There are no excuses here, everyone involved should apologise and learn.

 

 

You are misunderstanding. 

 

I'm not answering as a Green supporter who has piled in when the situation is reversed (although is there a reverse situation with plausible deniability, as here so this feels like whataboutery) and therefore I'm not guilty of double standards. 

 

I was answering as me.

 

And for the record Polanski's spokesman, if not Polanski himself, has condemned the top.

[steviewevie]

Polanski has actually gone up in my opinion, being someone who also is human and has made way too many mistakes. Obviously still won't vote for them because they're silly.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

 

 

You are misunderstanding. 

 

I'm not answering as a Green supporter who has piled in when the situation is reversed (although is there a reverse situation with plausible deniability, as here so this feels like whataboutery) and therefore I'm not guilty of double standards. 

 

I was answering as me.

 

And for the record Polanski's spokesman, if not Polanski himself, has condemned the top.

Not really aiming the double standards quote at you directly, more the general response from those who support him. How many on the left would be talking about plausible deniability if it was a politician from the opposite side. My experience in these situations is rather than take the evidence and come to a conclusion, many will make a judgement on whether they like the person and come up with evidence to support the view they want to have. 

[xxialac]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Not really aiming the double standards quote at you directly, more the general response from those who support him. How many on the left would be talking about plausible deniability if it was a politician from the opposite side. My experience in these situations is rather than take the evidence and come to a conclusion, many will make a judgement on whether they like the person and come up with evidence to support the view they want to have. 

There's some truth in what you say absolutely.

 

That said, I really can't think of a time someone in the far right shared an image as part of a carousel of many images, in which the first one was flattering to that person. The offensive image was buried further into the bunch and easily missable if you are accepting the share in a hurry.

 

So we don't know how people would respond to the situation you describe, as there is nothing remotely equivalent to this.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

There's some truth in what you say absolutely.

 

That said, I really can't think of a time someone in the far right shared an image as part of a carousel of many images, in which the first one was flattering to that person. The offensive image was buried further into the bunch and easily missable if you are accepting the share in a hurry.

 

So we don't know how people would respond to the situation you describe, as there is nothing remotely equivalent to this.

I mean you are correct that every situation is different and unique. However I have watched enough politics to know with 99 percent certainty how people would have reacted. Reform supporters (in general) would be coming up with excuses and Green supporters (in general) would be horrified. Political supporters are like football fans and the one thing that they have in common is a tendency for complete double standards.

[lost]

I mentioned I didn't think the suggested 10% levy would be enough to pay for Burnham's social care service. I would think something like this would be more likely to raise enough.

 

A new 1.8% tax on earnings on top of income tax and NI:

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 21:01 by lost

[steviewevie]

9 hours ago, lost said:

I mentioned I didn't think the suggested 10% levy would be enough to pay for Burnham's social care service. I would think something like this would be more likely to raise enough.

 

A new 1.8% tax on earnings on top of income tax and NI:

 

 

yep, that's what it would need, but he'd struggle to get that through because it breaks the manifesto...Hammond had similar problem. Could stick it in next manifesto though.

[steviewevie]

He's making a speech today about it apparently, and I think it will be about how need to sort this sh*t out, and that he wants to find consensus, but not about any proposals on how to pay for it at moment.

[xxialac]

11 hours ago, lost said:

I mentioned I didn't think the suggested 10% levy would be enough to pay for Burnham's social care service. I would think something like this would be more likely to raise enough.

 

A new 1.8% tax on earnings on top of income tax and NI:

 

 

The 10% levy on death is a complete non starter as:

1) It benefits rich people (vs 40% current levy) and newly taxes poor people who also have to sell the family home to pay the tax.

2) It will be labelled as the Death Tax by Reform and the Tories and the media.

This 1.8% tax on income - and yes, for the next parliament - is far more realistic.

[lost]

papers saying Reform not invited to take part in the consensus?

 

Introducing a new tax on incomes over £6,240. Effectively halving the personal allowance with the party still leading in most polls not being involved doesn't seem to be a great move for labour.

[xxialac]

4 minutes ago, lost said:

papers saying Reform not invited to take part in the consensus?

 

Introducing a new tax on incomes over £6,240. Effectively halving the personal allowance with the party still leading in most polls not being involved doesn't seem to be a great move for labour.

What did Farage do when an MEP in the EU parliament?

Constantly heckle and make speeches about how the EU was corrupt and a disgrace.

He has already proven what he would bring to the talks on a consensus...

And this social care levy works  and is accepted in Germany. The social care problem has to be paid for somehow - income tax is the least bad option, despite as you say it not being a votewinner. 

 

[xxialac]

"Bloomberg Economics estimates Healey’s headroom against the fiscal rules has also been reduced by £9 billion thanks to the oil price and rising borrowing costs. And remember in addition Burnham and Healey may have to find some £20 billion a year to pay for new defence."

 

TLDR: the UK economy is utterly f**ked.

[steviewevie]

Yes, Reform not invited, or Greens. Keeping out the populists I guess.

[kaosmark2]

"Keep out the populists"

Includes Labour

 

Hmmm.

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

"Keep out the populists"

Includes Labour

 

Hmmm.

Hmmm?

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

Hmmm?

I would describe Labour's behaviour attacking the disabled, immigrants, benefit claimants, trans people, and the "metropolitan elite" as populism.

[xxialac]

Why is Kwasi Kwarteng constantly platformed as an expert on the economy?

 

It's like getting that woman who put that pet in a bin to be the unofficial spokesperson for animal welfare.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I would describe Labour's behaviour attacking the disabled, immigrants, benefit claimants, trans people, and the "metropolitan elite" as populism.

Attacking? Nah, it's just not very liberal. They're not blaming a shadowy elite for the country's ills.

I guess you could argue they were more populist under Corbyn, for the many not the few and all that. I guess also Burnham has leant into the westminster elite thing with his devolution plans.