UK Politics

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

No one is expecting that, they just want to be able to see a doctor or not have to wait months for any treatment or for their kids to go to a school that isn't crumbling or to not feel unsafe because there are no coppers. Basic stuff. The net zero stuff is a necessary that won't help people right now but could help their kids or grandkids

 

and as well as helping prevent climate change the green new deal was about putting us up there when world inevitably moves towards renewable energy.

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Public services have been starved of cash and a lot of stuff is at breaking point and will need more cash whoever wins. Tories cutting taxes for electoral/political reasons just makes it all worse.

At same time labour came up with this big 28bn spend pledge and ultimately that was a big f**king mistake they've now had to drop. But, borrowing extra to invest in a green industrial strategy should have nothing to do with other spending, to say otherwise falls for the usual Tory propaganda. 

This country is obsessed with cost, not with outcomes, as if spending on wind turbines means fewer hospital beds.

Everything needs more money, that is the reality. Taxes will probably have to go up, but Labour are likely saving that till after they're in power, because they can't be honest about the sh*t we are in... unless they keep things as they are and hope the economy miraculously starts growing...if they do that they might not be in power for long.

I’m sorry to go on at you, I don’t mean to pick on you but you say the country is obsessed with cost yet you’ve been going on about the £28b rather than the goals of the policy that remain in tact.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

I’m sorry to go on at you, I don’t mean to pick on you but you say the country is obsessed with cost yet you’ve been going on about the £28b rather than the goals of the policy that remain in tact.

Ok and I hate to give same reply as I have multiple times but it was labour who came up with the pledge and labour who have now dropped it. Whether any of us like it or not it was their flagship policy and now it appears to have been diluted. They should have never have chance Mr up with this number in first place, and why stick with it for so long if was not realistic?

Oh and I read the news, I don't make the news. 

[steviewevie]

By all accounts labour are now going for safety first and won't promise too much in manifesto, and with their poll lead who can blame them, why f**k it up? And maybe they will be more radical in power, when they don't have to worry about something called the electorate.

But I'm not going to pretend that uturn didn't just happen.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok and I hate to give same reply as I have multiple times but it was labour who came up with the pledge and labour who have now dropped it. Whether any of us like it or not it was their flagship policy and now it appears to have been diluted. They should have never have chance Mr up with this number in first place, and why stick with it for so long if was not realistic?

Oh and I read the news, I don't make the news. 

I’ve gone into why the have a figure before so I won’t again. My point was that you were commenting that people are too obsessed with cost yet you’ve been talking about the cost of the Labour policy. So do you think you’ve been a bit obsessed with the cost rather than the objectives?

[Guest]

 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I’ve gone into why the have a figure before so I won’t again. My point was that you were commenting that people are too obsessed with cost yet you’ve been talking about the cost of the Labour policy. So do you think you’ve been a bit obsessed with the cost rather than the objectives?

Whether I or anyone else was obsessed is not the point, the point is labour stupidly came up with this number, and even just a few days ago starmer was talking about it before the actual uturn.

And also the point is a change of direction. Instead of looking like they were going to actually argue about borrowing big to invest, like Biden, they have now reverted to the usual fiscal prudence is the main thing. Hopefully they will be more radical when in power.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Whether I or anyone else was obsessed is not the point, the point is labour stupidly came up with this number, and even just a few days ago starmer was talking about it before the actual uturn.

And also the point is a change of direction. Instead of looking like they were going to actually argue about borrowing big to invest, like Biden, they have now reverted to the usual fiscal prudence is the main thing. Hopefully they will be more radical when in power.

You said people were too obsessed with cost, so as you said people should be obsessed with the outcome rather than the cost.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You said people were too obsessed with cost, so as you said people should be obsessed with the outcome rather than the cost.

Good grief round and round yes people were too obsessed with cost, but it is labour that put that cost at the forefront of everything.

Edited February 10 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

Anyway doesn't look like the uturn has done them any harm, Tories already so damaged, and maybe economy trumps green stuff in most people's minds.. mustn't max out the credit card or something.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Good grief round and round yes people were too obsessed with cost, but it is labour that put that cost at the forefront of everything.

Yes that was their mistake, but if they didn't then people would've just gone on about how it would be paid for. Ultimately it's the media that drive all this nonsense.

[steviewevie]

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Yes that was their mistake, but if they didn't then people would've just gone on about how it would be paid for. Ultimately it's the media that drive all this nonsense.

They came up with the number, now they have come up with the new numbers. The media just ask them about it.

[steviewevie]

Any pledges now are sticking, because it's manifesto writing time...e.g.

 

[steviewevie]

 

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

to not feel unsafe because there are no coppers. 

Personally I tend to feel more safe when there aren't as many coppers around.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

By all accounts labour are now going for safety first and won't promise too much in manifesto, and with their poll lead who can blame them, why f**k it up? And maybe they will be more radical in power, when they don't have to worry about something called the electorate.

But I'm not going to pretend that uturn didn't just happen.

I've heard this idea that they'll be more radical in power than their promises from a fair number of people (including frontbench Labour politicians with "no overpromising" claims), and while I do think there's an element of truth to it, I'd really like something to give me some hope.

[steviewevie]

16 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I've heard this idea that they'll be more radical in power than their promises from a fair number of people (including frontbench Labour politicians with "no overpromising" claims), and while I do think there's an element of truth to it, I'd really like something to give me some hope.

Blind faith

[steviewevie]

100% clean energy would be kind of radical. As would the abolition of zero hour contracts and halving violent crime against women.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

They came up with the number, now they have come up with the new numbers. The media just ask them about it.

Come on, you follow enough politics stuff to know that if Labour hadn't put any funding towards the policy initially the media/Tories would've harped on about unfunded, irresponsible spending.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Come on, you follow enough politics stuff to know that if Labour hadn't put any funding towards the policy initially the media/Tories would've harped on about unfunded, irresponsible spending.

Ok so they came up with some big number...then thought whoops that's a big big, here's a smaller number.

[Neil]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

No one is expecting that, they just want to be able to see a doctor or not have to wait months for any treatment or for their kids to go to a school that isn't crumbling or to not feel unsafe because there are no coppers. Basic stuff. The net zero stuff is a necessary that won't help people right now but could help their kids or grandkids

 

true  - they want those things and also no retreating from the £26Bn a year green spend, which is exactly my point, all improvements needs some of the limited resources (money).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Ok so they came up with some big number...then thought whoops that's a big big, here's a smaller number.

They put a figure to their policy because otherwise the media would claim the policy is unfunded and just ask where is the money coming from. They do this all the time.

[Neil]

Just now, Ozanne said:

They put a figure to their policy because otherwise the media would claim the policy is unfunded and just ask where is the money coming from. They do this all the time.

should have dumped the last election manifesto promise much sooner., things like that are out of date as soon as the election is lost.

[steviewevie]

ok...even I'm getting a bit bored of this 28bn now...but it wasn't in last election manifesto, Reeves came out with in in 2021. And it wasn't to show how stuff would be funded, it was just a big number to make headlines without the costing on how this money would actually be spent, in hindsight it was daft. They should have just come up with all the new clean energy and net zero pledges, decarbonise grid,  GB Energy, national wealth fund, insulating a couple of houses in N London...and then when actually do the policies in the manifesto come up with a costing.

Edited February 11 by steviewevie

[SalviaPlath]

If the comments reported by the Mail are verified, and he has seemed to confirm them, then Labour must withdraw their candidate from the Rochdale by election. 

Disgusting conspiratorial rubbish that spreads disinformation and does nothing to help the Palestinian resistance to the continuing genocide. 

I thought Antisemitism was the preserve of the evil Mr Corbyn and Starmer had driven it out? That's what I was told, repeatedly, by Mr Starmer's supporters anyway.