Jump to content

The Politics Thread


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

You'd prefer if everybody was poor? ūüėā

If I could have afforded it I'd have sent my children to private school as I believe it would have given them a better education and a better chance in life, my bad. ūüôĄ

Well I'll jump in here...

1. No I'd prefer it if everyone was paid a fair wage, and in the case of Sarwar's company not an illegal & unfair one.

2. It's a fair POV but you can't hold it and say you believe in levelling up society - which is the charge levelled against Sarwar, who is the leader of a political party that is, the last time I looked, notionally Socialist.

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Well I'll jump in here...

1. No I'd prefer it if everyone was paid a decent wage, not an illegal & unfair one..

2. It's a fair POV but you can't hold it and say you believe in levelling up society.

What, exactly, do you want me to do to level up society?

What do you actually do to level up society? 

Life's hard, harder for some, I look after my own, there's too many issues for me to be worrying about every day of my life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

What, exactly, do you want me to do to level up society?

What do you actually do to level up society? 

Life's hard, harder for some, I look after my own, there's too many issues for me to be worrying about every day of my life. 

Vote for a progressive party.

I'll vote SNP (constituency) & Green (List) next week - I'd vote Green at Constituency level too if they had a chance of winning.

You worry enough to comment about it and complain about policies that might cost you money but would arguably be a benefit to society as a whole like free broadband. 

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Vote for a progressive party.

I'll vote SNP (constituency) & Green (List) next week - I'd vote Green at Constituency level too if they had a chance of winning.

You worry enough to comment about it and complain about policies that might cost you money but would arguably be a benefit to society as a whole like free broadband. 

Aye arguably.

You conveniently, forgot free bikes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

"Sir" Keir Starmer to the likes of us, never forget the "Sir" part. "Sir" anything in charge of the Labour Party,

Appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2014 New Year Honours for "services to law and criminal justice". The knighthood entitles him to be styled as "Sir Keir Starmer"; however, he prefers that people do not use the title "Sir".

think about that for a minute. The original Labour Party Keir will be spinning in his grave.
You mean this (racist) guy?

Keir Hardie, in his evidence to the 1899 House of Commons Select Committee on emigration and immigration, argued that the Scots resented immigrants greatly and that they would want a total immigration ban. When it was pointed out to him that more people left Scotland than entered it, he replied, "It would be much better for Scotland if those 1,500 were compelled to remain there and let the foreigners be kept out... Dr Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so." According to Hardie, the Lithuanian migrant workers in the mining industry had "filthy habits", they lived off "garlic and oil", and they were carriers of "the Black Death".[26]

In 1908, when visiting South Africa, he said the Socialist movement stood for equal rights for every race but that "we do not say all races are equal; no one dreams of doing that"

Sarwar in Scotland, the millionaire whose family don't pay their workers minimum wage. Wonder if they think he's "bright and personable"? Never mind, I'm sure he has the founding values of Labour at his core and sending his children to private school is a reflection of those values.

Is it any wonder we refer to Labour as Red Tories these days?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye arguably.

You conveniently, forgot free bikes. 

What's wrong with free bikes for poor kids?

A huge step forward in social fairness and a great incentive towards living a healthy life-keeping some cars from doing the meaningless school run to boot.

It's a great idea.

To argue against free access to the internet, greatest benefit  of which will be to connect poorer families up to a wealth of information and support, would be the same as arguing against free books for schoolchildren and free libraries when they were the main access route to life-changing information and education.

The modern world is moving fast and it is right that we take steps to make sure that poorer kids don't get left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I didn't say he was perfect...



Seriously, though, this is about Starmer and Sarwar, heads of the party supposedly representing "the common people". How about addressing that instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd prefer if everybody was poor?
If I could have afforded it I'd have sent my children to private school as I believe it would have given them a better education and a better chance in life, my bad.
Where did I say that?

Socialism, which this pair is supposed to represent, isn't hard or complicated (to me anyway), it's the battle to attain four things:

Equal access to education for all (get rid of private schools)
Equal access to healthcare for all
A roof over everyone's head (that wants one)
No-one going hungry

I'm not blaming him for using private schools, I get it, I understand it, I might have done it myself for my son if I could've. It's the hypocrisy of doing that and leading Labour I don't have any time for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I would like to see taught well in schools is¬†Basic Financial Education. Too many kids from poor backgrounds have no idea how to budget. They get sucked up into the same traps as their parents. They sign up to ‚Äúbuy now - pay later‚ÄĚ schemes with abhorrent interest charges, mobile phone contracts, Sky, etc

There are some great resources made available by Martin Lewis that has a curriculum for teachers and students to follow at https://www.young-enterprise.org.uk/resources/your-money-matters-financial-education-textbook-scotland/

But is not being rolled out in my kids school. 

I teach my kids the following 3 basic principles.

- Avoid debt

- Spend less than you earn

- Invest the difference (and avoid IFA’s where possible)

I always abide by the saying ‚ÄúMoney is like oxygen - when you have enough of it you don‚Äôt worry about it, but when you don‚Äôt have any it‚Äôs all you can think about‚ÄĚ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

What's wrong with free bikes for poor kids?

A huge step forward in social fairness and a great incentive towards living a healthy life-keeping some cars from doing the meaningless school run to boot.

It's a great idea.

To argue against free access to the internet, greatest benefit  of which will be to connect poorer families up to a wealth of information and support, would be the same as arguing against free books for schoolchildren and free libraries when they were the main access route to life-changing information and education.

The modern world is moving fast and it is right that we take steps to make sure that poorer kids don't get left behind.

Why only "poor" kids? 

Social fairness, a fecking free bike? :lol: 

You are more than na√Įve if you believe free bikes will stop the school run.¬†

Let's be realistic about free broadband, I'll help you here, the vast majority of children for the vast majority of time do not use the internet for "information or support" and, again, why only free broadband for "poor" people?

Where do we stop this free handouts, which only reinforces families that are already entrenched is the social security system, that you can get stuff without any effort or hard work.

Also, how poor do you need to be be to get this free stuff? 

Nothing is for "free" so the money has to come from somewhere, at the expense of other "stuff". 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

"Sir" Keir Starmer to the likes of us, never forget the "Sir" part. "Sir" anything in charge of the Labour Party, think about that for a minute. The original Labour Party Keir will be spinning in his grave.

Sarwar in Scotland, the millionaire whose family don't pay their workers minimum wage. Wonder if they think he's "bright and personable"? Never mind, I'm sure he has the founding values of Labour at his core and sending his children to private school is a reflection of those values.

 

I'm assuming you don't have kids.

Surely you wouldn't drastically reduce their life choices based on your political principles? What kind of person does that to their own kids?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you don't have kids.
Surely you wouldn't drastically reduce their life choices based on your political principles? What kind of person does that to their own kids?
Well done on not reading my posts, far less understanding them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

'm not blaming him for using private schools, I get it, I understand it, I might have done it myself for my son if I could've.

 

Just now, salmonbuddie said:
2 hours ago, oaksoft said:
I'm assuming you don't have kids.
Surely you wouldn't drastically reduce their life choices based on your political principles? What kind of person does that to their own kids?

Well done on not reading my posts, far less understanding them.

I noticed earlier, what a walloper. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:
3 hours ago, oaksoft said:
I'm assuming you don't have kids.
Surely you wouldn't drastically reduce their life choices based on your political principles? What kind of person does that to their own kids?

Well done on not reading my posts, far less understanding them.

So you WOULD send your kids to private school.

So why the hell are you having a go at him for doing it when you would do exactly the same?

It's just this sort of plastic lefty nonsense which attracts ridicule.

BTW, I DID read your post and I DID understand it. What I didn't do was read your subsequent post first. Compared to your utter rank hypocrisy, I believe I can live with my failing.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you WOULD send your kids to private school.
So why the hell are you having a go at him for doing it when you would do exactly the same?
It's just this sort of plastic lefty nonsense which attracts ridicule.
BTW, I DID read your post and I DID understand it. What I didn't do was read your subsequent post first. Compared to your utter rank hypocrisy, I believe I can live with my failing.
And there's the "not understanding" part. Between this and Peter Weir you're having a mare, oaky, stop while you're behind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

I didn't say he was perfect...

emoji846.png

Seriously, though, this is about Starmer and Sarwar, heads of the party supposedly representing "the common people". How about addressing that instead.

Are you honestly saying that you have to be "common" to be a representative of a political party? 

How, exactly, do you define "common"? 

You come across as having a chip about people that are not from the street.

Oh, and I said in an earlier post Sarwar "came across" as bright and personable. 

8 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

Where did I say that?

Socialism, which this pair is supposed to represent, isn't hard or complicated (to me anyway), it's the battle to attain four things:

Equal access to education for all (get rid of private schools)
Equal access to healthcare for all
A roof over everyone's head (that wants one)
No-one going hungry


I'm not blaming him for using private schools, I get it, I understand it, I might have done it myself for my son if I could've. It's the hypocrisy of doing that and leading Labour I don't have any time for.

Point 1 - already in place, irrespective of private schools.

Point 2 - already in place, with countless billions being poured into the NHS every year, still never enough, seemingly.

Point 3 - Not so sure on this one, the number of people homeless isn't all down to the government, private buyers had hit the housing market hard. That'll be common people jumping aboard the property boom, damn them for not wanting to be common. 

Point 4 - I have some experience of these issues, being involved with a scheme up here. As usual, a mixture of people who truly deserve help and people who quite simply, have never tried to lift themselves and their family out of the support that is provided. No sob stories here please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Point 1 - already in place, irrespective of private schools.
Point 2 - already in place, with countless billions being poured into the NHS every year, still never enough, seemingly.
Point 3 - Not so sure on this one, the number of people homeless isn't all down to the government, private buyers had hit the housing market hard. That'll be common people jumping aboard the property boom, damn them for not wanting to be common. 
Point 4 - I have some experience of these issues, being involved with a scheme up here. As usual, a mixture of people who truly deserve help and people who quite simply, have never tried to lift themselves and their family out of the support that is provided. No sob stories here please. 


1 - should've said equal and free access to education. Private schools are an unfair advantage.

2 - for now, maybe, I strongly suspect there are people in power looking to use the NHS to line their own pockets. Quelle surprise...

3 - how did they manage that? Does social housing (or lack thereof) ring a bell? Enabling people to buy their houses from the council was misguided but I got it. Tying up the money raised from those sales thereby preventing replacements being built was unforgiveable.

4 - I have some experience down here. It's only my view but I can live with the fekkers ripping us off if it means that someone who genuinely needs help gets that help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Are you honestly saying that you have to be "common" to be a representative of a political party? 
How, exactly, do you define "common"? 
You come across as having a chip about people that are not from the street.
Oh, and I said in an earlier post Sarwar "came across" as bright and personable.  


No, I'm saying that being a millionaire means that you're not the right person to be leading the party supposedly representing the working class. They'd be fine in the Conservative party...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:


 

 


1 - should've said equal and free access to education. Private schools are an unfair advantage.

2 - for now, maybe, I strongly suspect there are people in power looking to use the NHS to line their own pockets. Quelle surprise...

3 - how did they manage that? Does social housing (or lack thereof) ring a bell? Enabling people to buy their houses from the council was misguided but I got it. Tying up the money raised from those sales thereby preventing replacements being built was unforgiveable.

4 - I have some experience down here. It's only my view but I can live with the fekkers ripping us off if it means that someone who genuinely needs help gets that help.

 

1 - Unfair? Really?  For people who have worked hard and can offer their children a chance? Sorry, life's not that simple, and it shouldn't be I detest a "one size fits all" approach. 

2 - Oh, moving the goal posts? 

3 - Yet again, the usual approach of "blame" the government for everything, ignoring other forces that have added to this situation.

4 - Just about agree still makes my blood boil leeches milking the situation. Some focus on these members of society seem to be getting forgotten in this day of "help everybody". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:


 

 


No, I'm saying that being a millionaire means that you're not the right person to be leading the party supposedly representing the working class. They'd be fine in the Conservative party...

emoji846.png
 

 

What if somebody worked hard and became a millionaire, are they unworthy?

This "label" is, frankly, pointless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

1 - Unfair? Really?  For people who have worked hard and can offer their children a chance? Sorry, life's not that simple, and it shouldn't be I detest a "one size fits all" approach. 

A lot of people on low wages work hard. Do they not deserve the same privileges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FTOF said:

A lot of people on low wages work hard. Do they not deserve the same privileges?

Do people who work hard doing a simple job deserve the same as people who are inventive, are pushing boundaries and prepared to go the extra mile?

Not in the real world. 

Employers will, generally, reward people who contribute more to the company.

We all know people who work hard but have limitations.

10 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Sorry, life's not that simple,

If only life was like that.............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

What if somebody worked hard and became a millionaire, are they unworthy?

This "label" is, frankly, pointless.

I don't think being a millionaire should stop you from being the leader of a Socialist party, especially if like Starmer you're from London where property prices probably puts you a good way down that road but Sarwar should be an automatic non-runner up here due to his company's wage history.

3 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Are you honestly saying that you have to be "common" to be a representative of a political party? 

How, exactly, do you define "common"? 

You come across as having a chip about people that are not from the street.

Oh, and I said in an earlier post Sarwar "came across" as bright and personable. 

Point 1 - already in place, irrespective of private schools.

Point 2 - already in place, with countless billions being poured into the NHS every year, still never enough, seemingly.

Point 3 - Not so sure on this one, the number of people homeless isn't all down to the government, private buyers had hit the housing market hard. That'll be common people jumping aboard the property boom, damn them for not wanting to be common. 

Point 4 - I have some experience of these issues, being involved with a scheme up here. As usual, a mixture of people who truly deserve help and people who quite simply, have never tried to lift themselves and their family out of the support that is provided. No sob stories here please. 

I think where the left often fails (and I've fallen into this trap myself) is that we forget people are aspirational - Tony Blair for all his faults has been the only Labour leader since Wilson in the 60s to avoid this pratfall.

Point 1 - I wouldn't ban private schools but I would remove their charitable status.

Point 2 - Again I wouldn't ban private health care but ways must be found to prevent it piggybacking on the NHS.

Point 3. - The housing market was skewed by the Tories back in the 80s when they sold off council houses at below market values and prevented councils replacing them causing shortages. Ownership/Renting should not really matter - what is important is security of tenure which is not always available with private renting

Point 4 - Why does it always come down to splitting people into the deserving and undeserving poor, the clear context is that some people are scum - isn't it?

********************

I will never vote Conservative as the party have demonized & marginalized people (from the enemy within & the looney left in the 80s to today's cultural wars & marginalization of workers rights due to the gig economy) over the course of my adult life, and continue to do so, since Thatcher came in quoting Francis of Assisi all of them have come into office talking of "levelling up" and all of them have done the complete opposite.

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Do people who work hard doing a simple job deserve the same as people who are inventive, are pushing boundaries and prepared to go the extra mile?

Not in the real world. 

Employers will, generally, reward people who contribute more to the company.

We all know people who work hard but have limitations.

If only life was like that.............................

In the "real world" no-one goes out alone into the Klondyke to discover gold anymore, even "inventive people who are pushing boundaries" today are merely taking advantage of the benefits society has offered and any rewards accrued should be taxed accordingly.

As usual the three posts I've quoted is a rehash of the "forelock tugging" you always come out with - the UK has one of the biggest (if not the biggest)  disparities in income between the Top&Bottom 10% in Europe - life really could be fairer, if only we choose it to be so...................

******************

I'm assuming that (like me) you're a 50+ homeowner with a decent pension to look forward to (we're all right Jack), our children may well be the first generation to be poorer than their parents (sic) - what a legacy we're leaving.

Wow that was a bit more than I intended to write!  :hammer

Edited by Bud the Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

As usual the three posts I've quoted is a rehash of the "forelock tugging" you always come out with

"Forelock tugging", a term the Bravehearts love, confirming the inferior complex that follows you/them around.  :lol:

Your usual chip on your shoulder post. 

The "world" you seem to desire has not, and never will, exist. :byebye

Get over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...