UK Politics

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

1) How?
2) How?
3) How will it work and how is it different to what we already have?
4) Hurrah, where will the money come from though?
5) How?
6) How? There are already more than 15,000 vacancies they cannot fill so just adding more leaves more unfilled.

They are good pledges but unless they say how they will be done they are meaningless like Sunaks pledges are meaningless.

A good start but until the details come they mean little.

Im sure they will have a document to expand, but would look a bit cluttered on a poster. The reality is however most of the electorate just want simple and not detail. Those who want the detail probably know how they are voting.

[Nobody Interesting]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

can't fit the all that on a pledge card. But, also most people aren't that bothered about how these things get done, they just want them done. Usually it comes down to money and planning.

 

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Im sure they will have a document to expand, but would look a bit cluttered on a poster. The reality is however most of the electorate just want simple and not detail. Those who want the detail probably know how they are voting.

 

 

Oh I get all that - my questions really were what the media will ask and what the Tories will ask etc.

Personally I wish we could move away from the days of three word slogans (or in this case slightly more than 3) to 'get politics done' as recent history should teach us how they can lead to really bad voting decisions.

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Personally I wish we could move away from the days of three word slogans (or in this case slightly more than 3) to 'get politics done' as recent history should teach us how they can lead to really bad voting decisions.

well yeah, but it obviously works...so all the parties will be doing it over the coming months, and they will be on the back of election leaflets posted through letterboxes which people might see before they put them in the bin.

[steviewevie]

So exciting, but unfortunately I won't be able to watch it live...

 

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

I posted a Corbyn one too but moderators need to check it...deep state etc

[pink_triangle]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

To me that’s a good comparison. The Starmer one is more effective by having less pledges, but also the Corbyn pledges are a lot less clear hence the supporting text. I think

you could read the bold bits out your average voter and a lot wouldnt know what they mean.

[Crazyfool01]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I posted a Corbyn one too but moderators need to check it...deep state etc

not a clue why that needs approval ... weird , maybe something Neil setup with his corbyn hatred 🙂 

Edited May 16 by Crazyfool01

[Nobody Interesting]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

well yeah, but it obviously works...so all the parties will be doing it over the coming months, and they will be on the back of election leaflets posted through letterboxes which people might see before they put them in the bin.

 

I recommend returning unwanted ones to sender - our Tory ones get suitably marked and returned to the local Tory office.

[Nobody Interesting]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

This sort of thing IMHO is far better, not just three words and some detail and still easy to read and follow.

[Neil]

59 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

1) How?
2) How?
3) How will it work and how is it different to what we already have?
4) Hurrah, where will the money come from though?
5) How?
6) How? There are already more than 15,000 vacancies they cannot fill so just adding more leaves more unfilled.

They are good pledges but unless they say how they will be done they are meaningless like Sunaks pledges are meaningless.

A good start but until the details come they mean little.

i get what you mean but its scene setting music rather than anything meant to be taken too literally.

[pink_triangle]

I 

53 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

This sort of thing IMHO is far better, not just three words and some detail and still easy to read and follow.

I think it depends on how you are using the information. The Starmer pledges you can stick on a poster which people can read going past on a bus. The bulk of the electorate don’t want more to read and just a general message.

 

I think the message they want to get across is one of change from Corbyn labour, contrast from the Torys and a focus on bread and butter issues that matter to the electorate. I think it ticks those boxes.

[steviewevie]

One big difference between Blair's and Starmer's...the no rise in income tax rates pledge.

[steviewevie]

 

[pink_triangle]

Interesting hearing Owen Jones on bbc politics, his claim was that Starmer couldn’t call them pledges because people would call him out on the pledges he made to win the labour leadership.

 

I can guarantee the average voter could not care less about the previous Labour leadership election, they have far more important things to think about. 

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Interesting hearing Owen Jones on bbc politics, his claim was that Starmer couldn’t call them pledges because people would call him out on the pledges he made to win the labour leadership.

 

I can guarantee the average voter could not care less about the previous Labour leadership election, they have far more important things to think about. 

he's probably right though...but then so are you.

[steviewevie]

Although Starmer would say these are the first steps towards the missions (or pledges). Baby steps towards nirvana.

[pink_triangle]

A lot of talk about this sex education stuff which is basically trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist to stoke a culture war. A lot of the talk seems to be about how decisions on sex educations are one for parents and not the state.

 

My view is that the state absolutely should be involved in sex education. We shouldn’t disadvantage children and put at increased risk of pregnancy, STI and sexual exploitation because their parents find it difficult to talk about sex or choose not to.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

bit unfair?

 

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

bit unfair?

 

 

He likes rich pensioners.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

A lot of talk about this sex education stuff which is basically trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist to stoke a culture war. A lot of the talk seems to be about how decisions on sex educations are one for parents and not the state.

 

My view is that the state absolutely should be involved in sex education. We shouldn’t disadvantage children and put at increased risk of pregnancy, STI and sexual exploitation because their parents find it difficult to talk about sex or choose not to.

I've never talked about sex to my son, at the point i might have done, he said that his mum had said some stuff so i used that as a reason to not go there myself.

 

 

[steviewevie]

40 minutes ago, Neil said:

I've never talked about sex to my son, at the point i might have done, he said that his mum had said some stuff so i used that as a reason to not go there myself.

 

 

 

they learn everything they need to know from the internet by the age of 5.