Westminster Politics

That's a very simplistic view, the Lib Dem's electoral position owes more than anything else to the sense of betrayal both from their core support following the tuition fee situation and from the belief that they shat the bed by climbing into one with the Tories. To say that because the Lib Dem's have polled badly these last 3 years means that people disagree with the need for a moderate voice in politics is akin to claiming Labour's win in 2005 underlined the Iraq war was massively popular or that there cannot exist a desire for a second referendum as the polls show most people would vote for two main parties who are currently opposed to it. That's not how these things work.

Right now you have a battle between the hard right and the hard left. Both of whom are hell-bent implementing a policy that the vast majority of people either think is going very badly, or they don't don't want it to happen at all or wish to have another say on. You cannot claim that the Lib Dem performance at recent elections means there is no audience for a moderate, centre-left party in the same way you can't claim Blair's wins in 2001 and 2005 were evidence of massive public approval of everything he did from Iraq to tuition fees and everything else. You can't belittle his point by pretending you're too stupid to understand nuance and context.

I guess it's one of the issues of politics on a football forum, too many can't understand anything beyond "lost 2-0 last Saturday, they're shit mate"
 
Oscie said:
That's a very simplistic view, the Lib Dem's electoral position owes more than anything else to the sense of betrayal both from their core support following the tuition fee situation and from the belief that they shat the bed by climbing into one with the Tories. To say that because the Lib Dem's have polled badly these last 3 years means that people disagree with the need for a moderate voice in politics is akin to claiming Labour's win in 2005 underlined the Iraq war was massively popular or that there cannot exist a desire for a second referendum as the polls show most people would vote for two main parties who are currently opposed to it. That's not how these things work.

Right now you have a battle between the hard right and the hard left. Both of whom are hell-bent implementing a policy that the vast majority of people either think is going very badly, or they don't don't want it to happen at all or wish to have another say on. You cannot claim that the Lib Dem performance at recent elections means there is no audience for a moderate, centre-left party in the same way you can't claim Blair's wins in 2001 and 2005 were evidence of massive public approval of everything he did from Iraq to tuition fees and everything else. You can't belittle his point by pretending you're too stupid to understand nuance and context.

I guess it's one of the issues of politics on a football forum, too many can't understand anything beyond "lost 2-0 last Saturday, they're shit mate"
Click to expand...
Your literally the thickest twat on here.
 
There's facts and there's facts. Corbyn got 40% of the vote at the last election. The same election May got the same share of the vote Thatcher got in 1983 when she won a majority of 144. Therefore you interpret that as a massive endorsement of Theresa May, her government and the path she's pursuing. But nobody argues that because it'd be absolutely fecking ridiculous.

The Lib Dem's polling badly does not mean there doesn't exist an appetite for a more moderate form of politics than is currently on offer from both the main parties.
 
Oscie said:
I guess it's one of the issues of politics on a football forum, too many can't understand anything beyond "lost 2-0 last Saturday, they're shit mate"
Click to expand...

Well you could always leave and find yourself a platform where others may understand you. Alternatively you could continue to alienate yourself on this forum by insulting all the posters on here. It's a solid 10/10 plan I must admit.
 
RedSky said:
Well you could always leave and find yourself a platform where others may understand you. Alternatively you could continue to alienate yourself on this forum by insulting all the posters on here. It's a solid 10/10 plan I must admit.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I do take that back.
 
Wish he the comments from Dorries and Mogg, it certainly looks possible.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson. God help us .
 
Adisa said:
Wish he the comments from Dorries and Mogg, it certainly looks possible.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson. God help us .
Click to expand...

It is hard to see how he would command the support of enough of the Tory party. He has his loyalists, no question but his colleagues who were pro-Remain prior to the referendum is likely to be a constituency he struggles with support from and among those who were pro-Brexit before the fact there exists both tremendous mistrust of his dedication to the cause and personal animosity; Let's not forget Gove who wouldn't stand a chance in a one-on-one leadership context with Johnson but certainly has enough influence to make any leadership bid for the twat an unwinnable prospect within the aforementioned lay of the land in the CLP.

Notwithstanding Johnson's latest struggles with fidelity will have soured things for him among some on the right, many of whom would already prefer the great white hope of Brexit to be JRM and could, for that very reason, be repelled by the idea of Johnson as leader.

Wouldn't put it past him to try though. The irony that a political trajectory that in ordinary circumstances would see someone who had risen from journalist, to well-known media figure, to Mayor of London to MP to member of the government to Foreign Secretary - be a logical choice for candidate for next leader of his party and prime minster, has been undermined by his evident obsessive desire to become leader of his party and prime minister
 
berbatrick said:
cartoonishly evil
Click to expand...
It's even worse than it sounds. The system is designed to reject as many people as possible, and the "why haven't you killed yourself?" question is just a tiny part of that,

eg.
why haven't you killed yourself?
uh
have family and friends supported you?
yeah

*claimant has the support of family and friends to prevent suicide*

benefits denied

claimaint kills themselves

one less poor person voting against them.

If the god these people pretend to believe in exists they're going to spend eternity in hell.
 
Silva said:
It's even worse than it sounds. The system is designed to reject as many people as possible, and the "why haven't you killed yourself?" question is just a tiny part of that,
.
Click to expand...

I had to take one of these test when I injured myself and couldn't work for a while. And well here are some examples of why I failed to get the correct amount of points

Claimant can answer and talk on the phone = Point deduction

Claimant can shower by himself = Point deduction

Claimant is has been suicidal recently = Point deduction

Claimant did not shows signs of sweating or shaking during the interview process(Yes this one is actually real) = Point deduction

Benefits denied.

The whole process is set up to go one thing and one thing only - to get people off benefits. It was one of the most dehumanising experiences I've gone through and at times it felt like a scene from the movie Brazil. Now I try for the most part(And mostly fail)to not blame voters but if you've voted Tory in the recent past then you've cause some of the most imaginable misery this country has seen in a long time.
 
Diane Abbott on radio 4 today to explain it was Labour policy to recruit 10,000 additional police, and pay for it by raising capital gains tax, a proposal which I thoroughly agree with, for what that's worth. So given Abbott's past inability to answer any questions involving numbers the presenter asked the obvious question, 'how much would the extra police cost?'. Once again she had done absolutely zero homework, and obviously had no clue whatsoever, despite it being her flagship policy as shadow home secretary, and despite having failed so badly with similar questions in the past. I'm sure she goes down well in party meetings but if she's given much exposure at election time she's going to cost Labour a lot of votes.
 
711 said:
Diane Abbott on radio 4 today to explain it was Labour policy to recruit 10,000 additional police, and pay for it by raising capital gains tax, a proposal which I thoroughly agree with, for what that's worth. So given Abbott's past inability to answer any questions involving numbers the presenter asked the obvious question, 'how much would the extra police cost?'. Once again she had done absolutely zero homework, and obviously had no clue whatsoever, despite it being her flagship policy as shadow home secretary, and despite having failed so badly with similar questions in the past. I'm sure she goes down well in party meetings but if she's given much exposure at election time she's going to cost Labour a lot of votes.
Click to expand...
Wasnt it literally the same question that unstuck her last time?
 
Police budget cut by 19% since 2010 leading to 45,000 job losses.
That the same set of people continue to get reelected is an indictment on this country.
 
Adisa said:
Police budget cut by 19% since 2010 leading to 45,000 job losses.
That the same set of people continue to get reelected is an indictment on this country.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more, it should be an open goal for Labour to shoot at, which is why it's so annoying they appoint an economically illiterate shadow home secretary that will cost them votes instead of win them.
 
711 said:
I've not the best of memories but it was certainly similar. All she could say was 'there'll be enough billions from the tax to pay for it', and when pressed just went 'it depends'.
Click to expand...
Probably better than just making up numbers to be fair.
 
Silva said:
the prime minister wears her fathers vicarship as a suit of armour, and much of the conservative party which designed this system frequently pretends to be devout to jesus
Click to expand...
It’s funny and ironic that the first giveaway of politicians being heartless feckers is their boasted devotion to their faith. Also see the Bible Bashers in the US.

I’m not just singling out Christian zealots either, the Islamic theocrats in the Middle East are just as hypocritical in regards to their empathy or lack of it.
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Probably better than just making up numbers to be fair.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but Abbott should be able to find current police numbers and wage bill, and give a pro rata cost, and also know how much capital gains tax brought in last year. She wouldn't even have to look it up herself, the senior shadow cabinet will have researchers and assistants to do that if asked. The bottom line is that Corbyn thinks she's a suitable choice for a senior cabinet position, who would likely one day be giving advice in a major crises, the next banking disaster, military situation or something completely unforeseen. Frightening.
 
711 said:
Well yeah, but Abbott should be able to find current police numbers and wage bill, and give a pro rata cost, and also know how much capital gains tax brought in last year. She wouldn't even have to look it up herself, the senior shadow cabinet will have researchers and assistants to do that if asked. The bottom line is that Corbyn thinks she's a suitable choice for a senior cabinet position, who would likely one day be giving advice in a major crises, the next banking disaster, military situation or something completely unforeseen. Frightening.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...


That should be plastered on every newspaper in the land. It's a national disgrace.

Physician numbers are bad enough but 42,000 nurses? Christ.

I'm sure there's more than one reason for it but the phrase 'fcuk you, pay me' comes to mind. But then, these are the people who will generally do the job without prioritising their own worth.
 
We are slowly sleep walking into a private NHS. The quicker we realise it the better.
 
Minimalist said:
That should be plastered on every newspaper in the land. It's a national disgrace.

Physician numbers are bad enough but 42,000 nurses? Christ.

I'm sure there's more than one reason for it but the phrase 'fcuk you, pay me' comes to mind. But then, these are the people who will generally do the job without prioritising their own worth.
Click to expand...

Can confirm the nursing deficit is having a dramatic impact on services right now - I manage a mental health team and we currently have a nursing vacancy that we have been unable to fill for 5 years or more. They are also leaving nursing homes in droves and we are losing hundreds of nursing beds this year alone (in one area of Northern Ireland) which is also having a really dreadful impact here. It's a shit show.
 
Silva said:
It's even worse than it sounds. The system is designed to reject as many people as possible, and the "why haven't you killed yourself?" question is just a tiny part of that,

eg.
why haven't you killed yourself?
uh
have family and friends supported you?
yeah

*claimant has the support of family and friends to prevent suicide*

benefits denied

claimaint kills themselves

one less poor person voting against them.

If the god these people pretend to believe in exists they're going to spend eternity in hell.
Click to expand...

To be fair - having worked in mental health for years - it is standard practice to ask somebody who is saying they are suicidal why they have not acted on it - i.e. what are the things that are stopping you from killing yourself and then you focus on those to get a safety plan in place. It's a fairly standard conversation to have in this job and I think it's been twisted a little to make it appear that it is being asked in an aggressive or accusing way which in my experience is the opposite of what you are trying to do.

Although I acknowledge this is in a different context but I'd imagine this is the reason why these questions are asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.