news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

That seems to be a Starmer error, Wes Streeting outlines it pretty well. 
 

Look at us Steve, talking about actual politics rather than thread nonsense which is typical from that poster. 

[cellar]

Alright, fair enough Ozanne, seems pretty rubbish to talk about someone in a vague way to make them question if it's directed at them or not, but hey. 

Lets talk politics though. On the pretty solid assumption that post was directed at me - which failings in particular have I tried to brush under the carpet, and we could talk about those? Or whatever you like, really - I don't think our fundamental views are as far apart as they might seem, although I don't find your style of presenting information to be super easy to engage with.

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

That seems to be a Starmer error, Wes Streeting outlines it pretty well. 
 

Look at us Steve, talking about actual politics rather than thread nonsense which is typical from that poster. 

Yeah after reading what he said it is kind of a shit headline. He's saying more needs to be spent on training and stuff here so don't need to rely on immigration.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yeah after reading what he said it is kind of a shit headline. He's saying more needs to be spent on training and stuff here so don't need to rely on immigration.

Don’t get me wrong, he made an error there by not explaining the policy very well at all. He’ll need to work on that as we head towards an election but Streeting cleared things up and the policy itself sounds decent (and funded!)

The headline is also rubbish too. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Ozanne

[cellar]

Ah that's a shame, if not unsurprising. Take care Ozanne.

[Guest]

 

12 years of Tory rule.

[charlierc]

5 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Big week in US coming up. Democrats trying to make it all about something called democracy, whereas Republicans focusing on the economy and crime, and they'll probably end up winning both houses and that will be final nail in coffin for Biden standing for president in 2024 and think that probably means...Trump. You think we're in a pickle, that place is fucked.

 

4 hours ago, cellar said:

Trump as president again seems too fantastical to be real - so probably will happen. I suppose it made it more palatable to live in the UK when America had him in charge.

At least they don't have the Tories to worry about though, so won't have to worry about inflation on top of everything else.

For a little while, my personal opinion has been that the 2024 Presidential election would see both Biden & Trump absent on the ballot - the former due to Democrats thinking they needed something better than someone who will be 80+ for their entire second term and the latter due to one of Trump's legal problems catching up with him in a point where he is just too toxic to elect, even for the Republicans. I still think this is what may happen, but given how mental their politics gets, who knows.

The mid-terms have kinda gone under the radar for me, even among US sites I browse compared to what I expected when I thought it'd be wall-to-wall, but seems to have flip-flopped a bit between a Republican certainty for both houses, a Democrat certainty, and now tight but likely Republicans, who seem to have been forgiven very quickly by some people with short memories for the January 6th debacle and Roe v Wade and all the rests of it because the inflation problem is a thing.

The Dems seem to be regularly pretty poor at campaigning, mind, plus I'm aware the incumbent President's party usually gets a kicking, as indeed Obama did in 2010 and 2014, and Trump did in 2018.

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

 

For a little while, my personal opinion has been that the 2024 Presidential election would see both Biden & Trump absent on the ballot - the former due to Democrats thinking they needed something better than someone who will be 80+ for their entire second term and the latter due to one of Trump's legal problems catching up with him in a point where he is just too toxic to elect, even for the Republicans. I still think this is what may happen, but given how mental their politics gets, who knows.

The mid-terms have kinda gone under the radar for me, even among US sites I browse compared to what I expected when I thought it'd be wall-to-wall, but seems to have flip-flopped a bit between a Republican certainty for both houses, a Democrat certainty, and now tight but likely Republicans, who seem to have been forgiven very quickly by some people with short memories for the January 6th debacle and Roe v Wade and all the rests of it because the inflation problem is a thing.

The Dems seem to be regularly pretty poor at campaigning, mind, plus I'm aware the incumbent President's party usually gets a kicking, as indeed Obama did in 2010 and 2014, and Trump did in 2018.

Don't the Dems regularly win the popular vote but still lose? Anyway..I can see a definite path to Trump standing in 2024, losing, claiming he was robbed again, and then bedlam. There are a lot of wound up and angry people over there, and they all have lots of guns.

[steviewevie]

[Guest]

Oh dear. 

[steviewevie]

Bojo at COP telling leaders (like Sunak) to stick with net zero pledges. 

Bring Back Boris.

[Guest]

Maybe Sunak will make the decision to go for on-shore wind. Oh hold on...

[Guest]

 

Oh goodie.

[cellar]

13 hours ago, Barry Fish said:

Sadly discussions on here go no further than the chuckle brothers dumping their twitter feeds here for us all to see.

If anyone challenges @Ozanne on his view point - him and his bully boy mate just call people trolls or torys.  Its all very dull.

Yeah, naive of me to think I could try to engage rationally - it made me think again that he probably is a troll, but I've been assured he isn't. Ah well, I won't lose any sleep over it, and his behaviour speaks for itself.

13 hours ago, charlierc said:

The mid-terms have kinda gone under the radar for me, even among US sites I browse compared to what I expected when I thought it'd be wall-to-wall, but seems to have flip-flopped a bit between a Republican certainty for both houses, a Democrat certainty, and now tight but likely Republicans, who seem to have been forgiven very quickly by some people with short memories for the January 6th debacle and Roe v Wade and all the rests of it because the inflation problem is a thing.

From the bits I've read (not massive amounts, usually from things a friend shares), the situation sounds grim for the Dems, even despite the things you mention. That attack on Paul Pelosi is particularly scary too, it just all seems wrapped up in this violent narrative that surrounds Trump and his supports (maybe that is a fairly simplistic view).

But yeah I would never bet either way on Biden and Trump being on the ballot in 2024. 

[Guest]

It’s probably best to focus on politics rather than individuals in here. 

[Guest]

So the PM’s spokesperson has full confidence in Gavin Williamson, I wonder how long this one will drag on for and if it will come back to haunt Sunak. 

[cellar]

Is posting a politically-related tweet and then making passive-aggressive comments about individuals allowed?

[Guest]

Is Sunak only going to COP for 1 day? That seems like a waste of an opportunity, it’ll hardly do anything.

[cellar]

Would Sunak being there longer than a day even matter? The only thing it achieves is to signal commitment to climate action, and ceremonially hand over to the Egyptian government.

[steviewevie]

41 minutes ago, cellar said:

Is posting a politically-related tweet and then making passive-aggressive comments about individuals allowed?

2 things...1. we do need more investment in training nurses and doctors here and so not so reliant on getting them from abroad, 2. lots of voters probably agree.

But, yeah he shouldn't say shit like this imo, or at least should have worded it differently, but not sure I buy how he said it was a mistake.

[Guest]

Streetings version of this policy is much better wording of it, Starmer didn’t handle it well but it is generally pretty popular with the public and it’s funded. It’s timely too as Nurses have voted to strike. 

[Guest]

Details on the possible plans for the fiscal statement. 

[steviewevie]

he outlines a few potential problems for labour tweets 3 onwards.

[kaosmark2]

28 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

2 things...1. we do need more investment in training nurses and doctors here and so not so reliant on getting them from abroad, 2. lots of voters probably agree.

But, yeah he shouldn't say shit like this imo, or at least should have worded it differently, but not sure I buy how he said it was a mistake.

Voters may agree, but a much better phrasing is something along the lines of:

"We need to recruit from abroad now to fill the gaping holes the Tories have left in our NHS. That said, Labour will introduce new training programs, bursaries, and a better pay packet so that we our next generation will have sufficient capacity from domestic recruitment"

Starmer is just appealing to racists right now.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

he outlines a few potential problems for labour tweets 3 onwards.

He does and whilst the Tories might be thinking this is a clever move to stitch up a future Labour government it’s easily dealt as Labour can just ask where the cuts are coming from. Then if the Tories have no answer Labour can claim the Tories have no idea what they are doing.