User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#47222
Yeah, since today. I just signed up but will never post. It's surprisingly easy not to post.
User avatar
By Boiler
#47224
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Fri Jun 30, 2023 4:40 pm Yeah, since today. I just signed up but will never post. It's surprisingly easy not to post.
I'll learn to live without it. I've managed to live without it, Facebook and Instagram (although I am warming to that latter) until now.
Watchman liked this
User avatar
By The Weeping Angel
#48033
I first heard heard about this reshuffle a couple of weeks ago when people were OUTRAGED that Nandy might be moved, it's ;supposed' to occur after the by-elections, Patrick Maguire should know this already as he was the one who broke the story in the first place.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48572
Why?
There will have to be a period of fiscal restraint as we rebuild. Things take time...
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48580
It's a massive contributor to child poverty which the party is saying it wants to abolish, and it's relatively cheap (£1.3bn a year) when you consider the downside of not abolishing it.

Sam Freedman (who I don't agree with on his specialism but talks sense about lots of other stuff) makes a good point, I think. Politicians tend to be those who've done very well at school, so they overestimate the power of education in alleviating poverty. You need other things, like a reasonable benefits policy to do that.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48586
And the optics?

Have patience...
Dalem Lake liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48588
The optics of relieving child poverty are probably not universally bad, I reckon. The SNP have the rape clause attacks ready for re-use. (They're liars who pretend they can't do anything about it, but that's not the point).

It's not when we can afford it, as far as I understand it. It's a firm no.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48590
No such thing as a firm 'no' in politics.

First phrase I learned: "That was then, this is now."
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48592
Obviously, I massively prefer Starmer to Corbyn, but mostly that's on grounds of what will work as much as what's electable. I'm glad that we're not going to spend a fortune buying a load of utilities we wouldn't run any better than the people who run them now (no dividends, but costs will rise probably by more). I'm glad that we've ended the fiction of getting everything we want through someone else paying.

But I see the £1.3bn to fix such an awful policy as cheap and easily fundable, if you even have to fund the whole amount.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48593
Malcolm Armsteen wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2023 12:55 pm No such thing as a firm 'no' in politics.

First phrase I learned: "That was then, this is now."
That doesn't seem to have been the impression, deliberately I'm sure, that he gave.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48594
Of course not!
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48598
Why does it get politically easier to restore it in later years? Think it's very unlikely that they'd lose an election because of promising to do it straight up. Plus it adds to the sense that Starmer is unreliable and dishonest, because he promised to abolish it before.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48603
Remember the priceless vase.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#48605
21 points ahead v the worst PM ever, with more economic shit heading our way. I think they can afford £1,3bn a year in that context.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#48606
It's not me you need to convince, it's the Mail, the Telegraph, the Express...
Dalem Lake liked this
  • 1
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 155
Trump 2.0 Lunacy

Well, he's just bombed Iran.

Nargle Fargle

The murder of an elected legislator is an attack[…]

Reform Party

Does anybody actually know what flavouring has c[…]

The Greens

Grace Blakeley has joined the Greens https://twit[…]