Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Outstanding. Absolutely outstanding.

Voted in 2015 for her and would have done so in 2016 and 2020.

Does Yvette play with the dipshits that swing elections? School ma’am Cooper, killjoy feminist Cooper.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:05 pm Does Yvette play with the dipshits that swing elections? School ma’am Cooper, killjoy feminist Cooper.

Also her husband is the weirdo soy boy with the funny name.

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:01 pm Voted in 2015 for her and would have done so in 2016 and 2020.

Me too.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:05 pm Does Yvette play with the dipshits that swing elections? School ma’am Cooper, killjoy feminist Cooper.

Pardon my linguistic Aspergers, but I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:05 pm Does Yvette play with the dipshits that swing elections? School ma’am Cooper, killjoy feminist Cooper.

As we saw in 2015, she's not necessarily a great front of house campaigner, making "visionary" promises (ie the same stuff you said 40 years ago). But I reckon they'd be impressed with her not taking any shit, and being in command of the brief. The electorate liked the look of Theresa May till she fell apart in the election campaign. Cooper wouldn't do that.

I still don't understand the op.

As we saw in 2015, she's not necessarily a great front of house campaigner

What's a 'front of house campaigner'?

Guessing they mean that she's seen as a bit of a killjoy, a bit serious, and that might turn off the "Boris is a laugh and at least his birds speak from the heart" mob.

Not that it should matter a jot. But sadly, competence in office has become a slur under this rotten regime. Too clever by half and so on.

She was very poor running for leader, in which she herself (not Labour) had to be front and centre. You don't really campaign on policy details- nobody wants to hear it then, and an opponent can just say "I thought what Yvette said was very interesting, and something I'd look at too" and it's basically neutralized. Actually, maybe the magpie opponent looks open minded and less of a bore than you.

Over time as Opposition Leader though, I think she'd come across better, with a proper job to get her teeth into. But I would have some worries based on that 2015 campaign.

Clarity! How welcome!

I think we* might be starting to look for serious competence again. The end of the rot tht began with Cameron.


*A rather worried electorate.

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:01 pm Voted in 2015 for her and would have done so in 2016 and 2020.

You may have the opportunity to vote for again later in 2022, depending on the Durham Constabulary. Think it would most likely be between herself and Lisa Nandy.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:14 pm

Youngian wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:05 pm Does Yvette play with the dipshits that swing elections? School ma’am Cooper, killjoy feminist Cooper.

Pardon my linguistic Aspergers, but I have absolutely no idea what that means.

‘Does she play?’ Not in the kindergarten sense but as in ‘does she play (grab attention) with the audience.’ I believe its a popular Americanism.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:18 pm She was very poor running for leader, in which she herself (not Labour) had to be front and centre. You don't really campaign on policy details- nobody wants to hear it then, and an opponent can just say "I thought what Yvette said was very interesting, and something I'd look at too" and it's basically neutralized. Actually, maybe the magpie opponent looks open minded and less of a bore than you.

Over time as Opposition Leader though, I think she'd come across better, with a proper job to get her teeth into. But I would have some worries based on that 2015 campaign.

I voted for her in 2015. I take on board what you say, but she was hampered by how it became Jeremy versus the rest and her message was drowned out.

Arrowhead wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:02 pm

mattomac wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:01 pm Voted in 2015 for her and would have done so in 2016 and 2020.

You may have the opportunity to vote for again later in 2022, depending on the Durham Constabulary. Think it would most likely be between herself and Lisa Nandy.

My two choices right now If Durham happens to find fault with Starmer for any reason.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:18 pm She was very poor running for leader, in which she herself (not Labour) had to be front and centre. You don't really campaign on policy details- nobody wants to hear it then, and an opponent can just say "I thought what Yvette said was very interesting, and something I'd look at too" and it's basically neutralized. Actually, maybe the magpie opponent looks open minded and less of a bore than you.

Apologies for veering off topic but I wish this was understood by the callers into LBC complaining that Starmer has no policies and they don't know what he stands for.

I've just watched the back half of Yvette Cooper's speech on the police and the justice 'sector' in general. Every word was true, and will resonate with the masses. She sounded very much like a senior cabinet minister in a government in waiting. Any of the more self-aware Tories who watched that must be squirming.

The great offices of state are currently filled by people who in the past would have been lucky to have been the paper clip secretaries bar possibly Hunt who at least has some experience before he entered the high office.

And this goes for the PM.

On another forum someone has bought up the whole Yvette Cooper introuduced Work Capability Assesment and therefore they can't forgive her. They linked to this btw.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/ ... l-approved

Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper.

The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA.

In addition, almost half of the 41 mental health descriptors for which points can be scored are being removed from the new ‘simpler’ test, greatly reducing the chances of being found incapable of work due to such things as poor memory, confusion, depression and anxiety.

There are some improvements to the test under the plans, including exemptions for people likely to be starting chemotherapy and more mental health grounds for being admitted to the support group. But the changes are overwhelmingly about pushing tens of thousands more people onto JSA.

Quality journalism here from Shebab Khan