|
|
Post by rikiiboy on Jun 17, 2024 17:46:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jun 17, 2024 17:46:19 GMT
Go on have a wee laugh. Mhairi Black on top form.
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 17, 2024 18:38:54 GMT
Och..Mhairi Doll 🤣
I used to love Rab C Nesbitt.
Two Doors Down nearly as good...
|
|
|
|
Post by rikiiboy on Jun 18, 2024 11:37:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 18, 2024 18:15:17 GMT
Starmer says he can't rule out Council Tax hikes.
As nearly every Council is completely broke or even in massive debt, I'd say that's a cert 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by rikiiboy on Jun 19, 2024 11:09:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jun 19, 2024 11:51:32 GMT
Starmer says he can't rule out Council Tax hikes. As nearly every Council is completely broke or even in massive debt, I'd say that's a cert 😁 These questions by journalists are really barmy aren't they. There is no political leader in the world who can predict what will happen over the course of five years. It can't be done. Will alcohol duty go up - almost certainly Will tobacco duty go up - almost certainly Will Vehicle Tax go up - well why wouldn't it What you can do is develop a system so that people have more money to spend. That would be affordable housing, rent regulation, affordable transport, job security, increasing free school meals to a wider group etc. If a person is paying £700pm rent and £150pm travel costs and they're on a zero hours contract on a low salary they basically have nothing left after buying food. So they default on the Council Tax for two months and then start paying back plus arrears arrangement and they never get out of that cycle. The Council has also spent £500 trying to get the money back. Councils need to know they are getting their money from at least 85% of the people in the area therefore if that person is paying £350 rent and travel costs are capped at £100 they're much less likely to default. Only steady as she goes provides this scenario. It's not exciting, in fact it can be quite dull politics but it is the only way to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 19, 2024 21:08:16 GMT
It's funny because what you outline is good Hildie and absolutely what Labour should be aiming for.
At this stage, they keep saying they are in the side of 'working people ' when what they would like to say (and can't) is that they are on the side of working class people.
That sounds derogatory on the one hand plus they need to entice all those who still might vote either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 21, 2024 7:37:23 GMT
Watched the extended QT last night. I thought Fiona Bruce (not usually my favourite)was good, trying to pin them down to actually answering the question - which Starmer continually avoided. That alone made up my mind that I am NOT going to vote Labour.
Can it possibly get any worse for the Tories ? This betting fiasco is beyond belief, especially considering who the 'punters' are. Appalling.
Trust is at an all-time low - especially mine!
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 21, 2024 10:33:24 GMT
I walked a couple of miles to the health centre to have a blood test this morning - such a lovely day.
The three nurses there were lovely and I just mentioned my appreciation for them and all they do when they all chorused "and Starmer wants us to work longer and harder to clear the backlog - we're already stretched to the limit" They were all going to vote Reform!
I was taken back tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jun 21, 2024 11:45:34 GMT
It's funny because what you outline is good Hildie and absolutely what Labour should be aiming for. At this stage, they keep saying they are in the side of 'working people ' when what they would like to say (and can't) is that they are on the side of working class people. That sounds derogatory on the one hand plus they need to entice all those who still might vote either way. If you give the working class reliable jobs and housing they can afford. If you allow them some disposable income over and above food and heating. That's good for business. It's also good for HMRC, because they are the people it is easiest to collect taxes from. Stable housing and work reduces the number of benefit claimants. It reduces the amount of council tax defaults, the amount of debt owed to utility companies and overall makes everything a bit more upland than skip. Currently the businesses doing well are those supporting debt, insurance and luxury good. Luis Vuitton are knocking out handbags, but M&S is reducing their range of real leather bags. What we need is people with enough money for new carpets, sofas, fridges, cars, enough to go on holiday. This is what creates growth and economic stability. That helps all classes, because nobody is buying your luxury goods unless they have money. Nobody is buying your bespoke kitchen or getting new curtains. This makes manufacturing and similar business go under. The top end are doing ok, they have enough to be resilience in an inflation crisis. The middle, which is where most of the goods and services are bought and sold are struggling because the bottom has fallen out of the bottom. It's bottom up economics but the only way that really works. Osborne's top down economics and years of 'austerity' only makes the difference between the classes larger and puts no money into the pockets of ordinary people. They've tried a low wage unstable work economy but as we are not a third world country this doesn't work, people just go on benefits. They're not better off than they would be in work but they're not going through the awful work situations they were in. This kind of policy disincentives people to work. I have no problem with this kind of economy planning. In fact if we can get the NLW up to £25,000 we would take 50% of people out of benefits altogether and then the govt needs to raise less tax. I have my copy of the Labour manifesto and will be voting for them. Everything isn't rosy, nobody has a magic bullet but bottom up is the only way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 21, 2024 15:18:21 GMT
What you say here just puts in a nutshell why so many are on benefits, rather than working. That is good for nobody - especially for people who quickly become aimless with no structure to their lives. So stunting...
I know you will be voting Labour Hildie and maybe location has a bearing on that. We were on a bus yesterday that went right across South London. My goodness, it was desperate, you could see that, so they certainly need a leg up. Labour should be the answer but I just don't have confidence in them, and particularly not with their leader. At the moment we're seeing the Labour credibility folk projected - Ashworth, Streeting, Cooper...but there are dubious ones in the ranks that I really don't like...
Anyway, we're going to get 'em, so I don't know what I am wringing my hands over 😒😂 It'll be interesting - though not necessarily good.
It does concern me though how many people seem to be decided on voting Reform. One of those nurses said "...and I don't care who knows it" but maybe location has quite a bearing on that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jun 21, 2024 16:10:54 GMT
I don't think any party gets away with having nobody a bit dodgy. Although I must say Starmer has done his best to get rid of quite a few.
I know they get on the TV bleating that they apologised for liking a tweet about whatever controversial post on social media. Tough, keep your fingers off your phone. You're working for and representing the company, stick to the rules. Starmer is very tough about this kind of thing, he booted Rayner's ex boyfriend out of the party for posting about the RMT strikes and standing on picket lines.
He will bide his time with Abbot but post election if she puts a foot wrong he will just get rid.
Sunak can't get a break. He needs to sack his entire comms team and he really didn't need those idiots betting on a July election. Not just that, they were stupid enough to do it via online accounts. He should've suspended them immediately. It's no good saying you're really angry. You're the boss, do the boss thing. Whoever thought up this National Service thing wants their brain squeezed, he ended up in a right tizz about it last night. Then he put words into a woman's mouth and started shouting at her.
I will say I am not convinced that this super majority idea will play out. When it comes to general elections people do tend to stick to form and I think it will be closer than the polls are predicting.
My ex is a full on Tory (made for interesting discussions) and he can't understand how they have come up with some their stuff. But he will be voting for them, although last time he voted tactically and voted Labour (in Scotland) to keep the SNP out of his constituency.
Every party has some good ideas it's just about choosing the ones that you like the idea of. No vote is wasted.
Farage wants to bring in a privatised NHS, maybe those nurses should go and work for it, because I bet they could fit in another 5 or 6 blood tests a day in between biscuits and cups of tea.
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 22, 2024 15:05:47 GMT
Yes, if Sunak doesn't boot out these online punters pdq, he'll be hounded about nowt else every time he's on a platform to speak. I'm expecting him to do that within hours (if he has any sense...🤔😂)
The National Service idea only appeals to their aged hard core "knock some sense into the blighters" but thankfully it'll never see the light of day but maybe a useful ploy to hang on to their seats in a select few constituencies. It is astonishing that people like Sunak, Hunt etc might even lose theirs. Gove went before he was defeated 😁 ...sensible.
But yes, there may not be a so called super majority, but Labour will win, we know that, and decisively. I am getting my head round the idea and the possible political climate. You seem to have confidence Hildie that Starmer won't tolerate agitators. I'm not that sure, but hope you are correct. I read a bit of their manifesto "fully costed, fully funded" though never exactly saying how. Also, we should not forget he is a lawyer and I can see Assisted Dying and termination of pregnancy at any stage or reason to carry no penalty. That my country would embrace such things fills me with dismay.
Btw, Does that mean you still enjoy (political) arguments with your ex ?
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Jun 22, 2024 17:10:42 GMT
We do enjoy political arguments together Maris, we were on the phone until about midnight after QT this week. We made a decisions years ago not to insult each other about it and we don't.
BTW his wife is a bit dim, so he does occasionally phone for a conversation about stuff. Not about me or the children just something he's read or heard about.
I have the Labour Manifesto and all the financial costings are in the tables at the back. I think all parties now do it that way.
I would think any vote on helping someone to kill themselves would be a free vote.
I don't think anyone would vote to extend the right to abortion beyond what it is. Women already have the right to terminate a pregnancy up to term in catastrophic emergencies. It is only done a handful of times a year to induce a pregnancy where the baby has died or the woman has been so injured (car crash or similar) that the only way they can save her is to abort the baby who is also catastrophically injured.
However nowadays with advances in intensive care it is possible more often to save both and that is the first route they try.
I have known it happen when the mother had a heart attack at 36 weeks and once when a woman's uterus ruptured and internal bleeding couldn't be stopped.
I have never known it through a straightforward choice.
Once knew of a case where a woman was in psychiatric hospital and still trying to kill herself and attacking staff. The psychiatrist applied to the court because he said hormones were making it too hard for her to cope and get better. The obstetricians had said they wouldn't do it without a court ordering them to. The judge declined because she didn't have the capacity to decide long term. He also said she couldn't be sedated if that medicine would harm the baby, but she could be restrained if she was going to harm herself. Her partner wanted the baby anyway. It was agreed that when she showed signs of going into labour she could be sedated. In the end she requested a Caesarean.
There was also a similar case where the woman was suicidal and didn't want the baby. Again the judge said she didn't have the capacity to make the decision. She was refusing ante natal screening or any blood tests. The judge said that was up to her as they weren't mandatory and she wouldn't make a court order. She also ended up with a Caesarean section but then sued because the poor junior doctor on that night couldn't cope with her refusing to let midwives in and she'd hit a couple. He made the decision to anaesthetise her and do the section. He got arrested for common assault. He was just reprimanded in the end and had his licence suspended for 4 months because he should have phoned for senior staff to come in. He should have phoned to tell them he was doing a section anyway. He should also have phoned the police. The psychiatric staff just brought her to the delivery ward and buggered off.
|
|
