|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:43:06 GMT
How can it be progressive to take the winter fuel payment from pensioners , while energy companies profits soar through the roof? As usual , labour tackle the symptoms of the problem , rather than the root of the problem itself. I would have a quiet sense of approval if labour stopped the three billion to Ukraine , gave the pensioners their fuel payment back , and started showing us some fucking progressive labour policies instead of red tory imitation policies? Energy companies' soaring profits is something that needs to be addressed. They ought to windfall tax the hell out of them. But that is a separate issue. There is however nothing the least bit progressive about taxing productive but struggling workers to pay for handouts to those who dont need them and who are much better off than them already in many cases. Being progressive is all about taxing on the basis of ability to pay and using those funds to support those in need of help. The latter does not include a lot of pensioners. Those in genuine need should of course be helped. But then again, no one likes having a freebie taken away. It is always somebody else - and usually somebody much worse off than them already - who should take the hit instead. I see flaws in what the government has done, but your silly arguments are far more persuasive than anything Labour has said, that it is actually the right thing to do. Most of the objections by avowed right wingers who in most cases are already reasonably well off pensioners, or heading that way, do seem rather self serving and self interested in the extreme. If you lot don't actually need the money - and anyone who thinks £12k is not very much clearly doesn't - stop whingeing about losing your handout when there are millions of others in far greater need, and whom helping is the real progressive thing to do. Steve why do you insist on calling me a right winger? its Thomas here , from previous forums we have been on together , and you know while we have disagreed over the years , im not a right winger? Your man starmer is the right winger remember? The problem with the energy sector is the culmination of years of both labour and tory short term thinking , and I have the time , I will try and go into detail and sort out my thoughts and opinions on the wider picture. Labour , like their tory counterparts , aren't going to sort the energy problems in the uk , and everyone outside of the labour bubble knows that... Starmer is a fucking fraud , and bullshitter of the highest order , surrounded by lickspittles tories like Reeves and Kendall to name but a few. Im positively communist next to liz Kendall . |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:45:30 GMT
Given that you don’t want WFA to be a universal benefit and given that there is no obvious measure of income/need for pensioners available to central government beyond pension credit, is it the case that the policy the government has adopted is the best one available Mr Benn? It is the easiest and therefore least costly. it will be costed further down the line , not necessarily by labour though. It will be interesting to see hardship inflicted , and what savings this brings . If the collateral damage is as I suspect too much , for too little savings , labour are going to get absolutely hammered. Starmer must be praying for a mild winter , and a nice bit of global warming. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 15:47:52 GMT
Anyone wittering on about the politics of envy loses my attention almost at once. Because it has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with struggling taxpayers not having to fund freebies to those who don't need them. I don't envy people who are better off than me. But I do resent having to pay for handouts they don't need when they are better off than me to start with. "Need" being the operative word. And pensioners in a position to be able to help their kids and grandkids are highly unlikely to be prevented from doing so by no longer getting a couple of hundred quid from taxpayers. It does always seem to be a thing that right wingers (aka right whingers, lol) resent helping anyone who needs it unless it is either themselves or other reasonably well off people, for whom ever more should be shovelled their way. The less you need it the more you deserve it seems to be the default assumption. But it is one mostly limited to supporters of the Tories or other right wing headbangers. I am certain of one thing. Your opposition no matter what is most assuredly taken so much for granted they probably don't even care what you think, because they know you will never vote for them anyway. So whinge away to your heart's content. You might as well bark at the moon for all the good it will do. well im exactly the same when folk witter on about "the poor". Many poor are undeserving of help , because they won't help themselves , and see benefits as a lifestyle choice , rather than a safety net for hard times. but thats exactly what my earlier article was talking about. Apparently its going to save 2billion , but how do you know its freebies being cut for those who dont need them when labour themselves haven't costed the impact , or told us how this is going to affect pensioners ? Further , why are we only talking about freebies to a small amount of pensioners as yet unquantified , but not talking about savings on an even bigger amount of freebies to Ukraine , or 5 times the amount of freebies to Africa regarding climate change? It really does seem selective , and thus makes people think it's all about envy of the elderly , who are not contrary to the perception of some all "well off". 5000 elderly died last year according to labour peer Prem Sikka WITH the winter fuel payment , how many more need to die this year ? Let me be clear Steve. I grew up in abject poverty. On a Glaswegian council estate. I dragged myself out of poverty , worked hard , and have done my best as I can in life from my lowly start. Please dont get me started on "the poor" as though they are one big homogenous block. Many of the "poor" are as undeserving , if not more , than rich pensioners you talk about for freebies . Leeches on society , who have no wish to contribute and merely wish to leech off those very same hard working taxpayers you talk about. Labour and their support can spin about rich pensioners not needing the winter fuel payment , but so far , it looks like a badly thought out policy , at the wrong time , for the starmer government , and everyone everywhere outside of the labour bubble is making capital out of it. long may it continue. Your wittering on with endless cliches - politics of envy, lifestyle choices, blah blah blah - just prove you to be an unreconstructed and most tiresome semi-Tory, trading in fallacious tropes. The sick and disabled do not choose to be so. Anyone out of work and choosing to remain so pretty soon gets the DWP on their case. In a minute you will be talking about "feckless scroungers" and "workers and shirkers" whilst not recognising the irony in the fact that the only handout you are defending is one to millions of non workers regardless of how little they need it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 16:02:54 GMT
Bringing the money spent on supporting Ukraine into the argument as if us no longer doing so will cost us nothing is both a separate issue entirely and wrong.
The lessons of history teach us that if we do not support a victim of aggression, then the danger from an emboldened aggressor increases and we have to pay a lot more later. So letting Ukraine fall is a fool's economy.
But the Ukraine issue needs to be debated elsewhere and not here so will say no more on the subject in this thread, no matter how many times you try to shoehorn it in.
I will though just point out the obvious fact that Ukraine's need is obviously much greater than that of better off pensioners. As is most of the Third World's. Taking money from the latter to fund continued handouts to better off pensioners, is quite literally going to result in babies dying so greedy pensioners can keep a few quid they don't even need.
But let's deal with those other issues in other threads. It is not the subject of the topic here, merely a apparent attempt by you to shift the debate into a totally different issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 16:21:23 GMT
Amadan, it was as obvious to me that you are Thomas as it is to you and everyone else that I am srb7677.
So I am familiar with your politics and your avowed support for Scottish Independence. Nevertheless, over the years your hatred for Labour - which to some extent I share, I dont trust Starmer as far as I could throw him - is nevertheless far more vitriolic than it is for anyone else. You have praised both SNP and Tories in Scotland, saying both served you much better than Labour. Until I left the party, your personal animosity for me was off the scale, though once I left and spent a lot of time slagging them off we seemed to get along a lot better. I sense with you that your hatred for Labour is visceral and personal, and mine has tended to be to some extent too. But I have parked my animosity for the time being in order to give the current incumbents a chance to prove or disprove themselves. I never actually voted for them anymore than you did.
You are not necessarily right wing in every particular, but you do often use some very right wing language and arguments at times, especially in matters such as are contained in this thread. Calling you a right winger here is therefore legitimate and accurate. You have always been more sympathetic to parties of the right than the left. So I am simply telling it as it is as I see it.
And it is inevitable that we will not always agree and it is in the nature of things that when we disagree our disagreement tends to become heated. But if it gets too heated or personal I will walk away from it for a time and return when I am ready
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 16:40:22 GMT
Amadan, aka Thomas. I have reflected upon my interactions with you on this topic and I have started to manifest one of my flaws, ie debating ever more robustly and heatedly to the point where I am crossing a line, eg in accusing you of deliberately trying to deflect and divert, impugning your debating integrity. I did similar with Zany a week or so ago. So apologies for that before it goes any further. I will attempt to avoid being personal going forwards, but if ever I slip across the line again, just call me out on it, and that will trigger reflection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 26, 2024 18:22:26 GMT
So not until AFTER that Energy company was up and running and then only a £400 difference to what would pertain had the Tories been in power. eh ? gb energy was ready to go ( another labour lie apparently) within days of labour winning the election. You are looking increasingly silly Steve. It's going to be a long hard five years or so for you running around defending your blairite chums in new labour with the shite that starmer comes out with.  Don't be daft. They hadn't got a pile of wind turbines behind the shed. They are ready to set the company up to start building them along with a promise from the government that it wont take 9 years to get planning and another 6 to connect to the national grid. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 26, 2024 18:28:20 GMT
I think its you who are being disingenuous. Vote after vote the majority poll to remain. So that means there's no great desire to leave, there's a minority. As for saying those numbers are without any campaign, that applies to both sides. the disingenuous part is claiming "there is no great desire to leave" , clearly just under half those polled before any campaigning has started shows otherwise zany. No multi national state can survive that level of discontent with Westminster rule , as has been shown over the last century with the split up similarly of the brit empire. It's merely retreating back to where it all began. Well to me a great desire to leave means substantially more than 50% want that. Otherwise a referendum would be pointless. It would just confirm substantially more want to stay in than substantially want to leave. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 18:36:34 GMT
eh ? gb energy was ready to go ( another labour lie apparently) within days of labour winning the election. You are looking increasingly silly Steve. It's going to be a long hard five years or so for you running around defending your blairite chums in new labour with the shite that starmer comes out with. Don't be daft. They hadn't got a pile of wind turbines behind the shed. They are ready to set the company up to start building them along with a promise from the government that it wont take 9 years to get planning and another 6 to connect to the national grid. Amadan's intense hatred for Labour can blur his judgement a little sometimes. Clearly anything that requires building stuff cannot be done overnight. Aside from the time necessary for construction it still first has to get planning permission which remains a slow and costly business until the legislation necessary to reform it can be got through. In anticipation of the latter, many might wait for the reformed planning system to be in place before wasting time and effort on it. So it may well not start happening on any large scale just yet. If people have been misled to believe otherwise, those doing the misleading are the ones needing to be called out, whether that be Labour people or anyone else. But Starmer is perfectly capable of misleading people in pursuit of office, but whether or not he has done so in this case I will leave others to argue about. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 18:52:59 GMT
the disingenuous part is claiming "there is no great desire to leave" , clearly just under half those polled before any campaigning has started shows otherwise zany. No multi national state can survive that level of discontent with Westminster rule , as has been shown over the last century with the split up similarly of the brit empire. It's merely retreating back to where it all began. Well to me a great desire to leave means substantially more than 50% want that. Otherwise a referendum would be pointless. It would just confirm substantially more want to stay in than substantially want to leave. In fairness, half the population wanting something does constitute a great desire and needs to be properly understood and not flippantly dismissed. Though a purist could validly argue that there is as yet just as great, or a nearly as great, a desire to remain. This cannot simply be dismissed either and also needs to be understood. In any future referendum, and in any case until then, each side needs to try and persuade the other. At the moment the demographics going forward look to be heading the way of Leaving, with the Remain vote heavily concentrated in the older age groups with younger Scots heavily weighted in favour of leaving the Union. Scottish opinion will thus inexorably swing decisively in favour of a desire to quit, unless some of those younger Scots favouring independence are subsequently persuaded to change their minds in significant numbers. Events and economics are as likely if not more likely to decide that than nationalist feeling. But in matters such as this I will defer to the knowledge of actual Scots with their ear to the ground. It is much harder to get a feel for Scottish public opinion other than through the medium of media sources with shall we say less than 100 percent reliability, when you live hundreds of miles from Scotland as I do. The only Scots I ever speak to in real life are those holidaying or living down here, and there can be no certainty that they are representative of opinion back home. The only Scot in my personal circle is the boyfriend of my sister, who hails from Glasgow but hasnt lived there for decades, and is a Sun reading working class Tory who hates the SNP almost as much as he hates Labour. I doubt whether he is representative of the average Scot, lol |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 26, 2024 19:00:22 GMT
Well to me a great desire to leave means substantially more than 50% want that. Otherwise a referendum would be pointless. It would just confirm substantially more want to stay in than substantially want to leave. In fairness, half the population wanting something does constitute a great desire and needs to be properly understood and not flippantly dismissed. Though a purist could validly argue that there is as yet just as great, or a nearly as great, a desire to remain. This cannot simply be dismissed either and also needs to be understood. In any future referendum, and in any case until then, each side needs to try and persuade the other. At the moment the demographics going forward look to be heading the way of Leaving, with the Remain vote heavily concentrated in the older age groups with younger Scots heavily weighted in favour of leaving the Union. Scottish opinion will thus inexorably swing decisively in favour of a desire to quit, unless some of those younger Scots favouring independence are subsequently persuaded to change their minds in significant numbers. Events and economics are as likely if not more likely to decide that than nationalist feeling. But in matters such as this I will defer to the knowledge of actual Scots with their ear to the ground. It is much harder to get a feel for Scottish public opinion other than through the medium of media sources with shall we say less than 100 percent reliability, when you live hundreds of miles from Scotland as I do. The only Scots I ever speak to in real life are those holidaying or living down here, and there can be no certainty that they are representative of opinion back home. The only Scot in my personal circle is the boyfriend of my sister, who hails from Glasgow but hasnt lived there for decades, and is a Sun reading working class Tory who hates the SNP almost as much as he hates Labour. I doubt whether he is representative of the average Scot, lol Benn. The polls consistently show less want to leave than want to stay. At the beginning of this conversation I stated that (Like brexit) if the polls changed I would support a second referendum. The idea that less than half constituted a substantial desire to leave came off the back of that. Just to put it in context. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 20:33:02 GMT
In fairness, half the population wanting something does constitute a great desire and needs to be properly understood and not flippantly dismissed. Though a purist could validly argue that there is as yet just as great, or a nearly as great, a desire to remain. This cannot simply be dismissed either and also needs to be understood. In any future referendum, and in any case until then, each side needs to try and persuade the other. At the moment the demographics going forward look to be heading the way of Leaving, with the Remain vote heavily concentrated in the older age groups with younger Scots heavily weighted in favour of leaving the Union. Scottish opinion will thus inexorably swing decisively in favour of a desire to quit, unless some of those younger Scots favouring independence are subsequently persuaded to change their minds in significant numbers. Events and economics are as likely if not more likely to decide that than nationalist feeling. But in matters such as this I will defer to the knowledge of actual Scots with their ear to the ground. It is much harder to get a feel for Scottish public opinion other than through the medium of media sources with shall we say less than 100 percent reliability, when you live hundreds of miles from Scotland as I do. The only Scots I ever speak to in real life are those holidaying or living down here, and there can be no certainty that they are representative of opinion back home. The only Scot in my personal circle is the boyfriend of my sister, who hails from Glasgow but hasnt lived there for decades, and is a Sun reading working class Tory who hates the SNP almost as much as he hates Labour. I doubt whether he is representative of the average Scot, lol Benn. The polls consistently show less want to leave than want to stay. At the beginning of this conversation I stated that (Like brexit) if the polls changed I would support a second referendum. The idea that less than half constituted a substantial desire to leave came off the back of that. Just to put it in context. Fair enough. I have not followed the polling closely in recent months so my understanding of the polls hovering either side of 50/50 might be a bit outdated. No doubt if you are wrong Amadan will provide the polling evidence in due course. I do think even 40 percent would constitute a substantial desire, just not a majority one. I see the two as having different meanings. A substantial desire can encompass a substantial minority. And if it is a large enough minority it still represents a point of view that has to be recognised and addressed. It is also reasonable to point out that in the last elections to the Scottish parliament, the Scots - via a system much more proportional than that for Westminster - voted in a majority of MSPs calling for another referendum. They thus had a democratic mandate to hold such a referendum which the Tory government at Westminster undemocratically refused to recognise. It seems likely that at the next Scottish parliament elections, a majority will be returned for MSPs in favour of the Union. This has already happened to Scottish representation at Westminster. But hopes that the issue will go away in the long term are likely to be dashed. The SNP or some other nationalist grouping will bounce back on a tide of anti-Westminster feeling at some point. At the moment the new government at Westminster is being given a chance but this is unlikely to last. Many younger Scots in particular have likely got anti-Westminster feelings in their blood so will easily become disgruntled again because of this. Those who believe in Scotland remaining part of the Union still need to persuade if they want to be and remain on the winning side of the argument in the long term |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 20:59:54 GMT
the disingenuous part is claiming "there is no great desire to leave" , clearly just under half those polled before any campaigning has started shows otherwise zany. No multi national state can survive that level of discontent with Westminster rule , as has been shown over the last century with the split up similarly of the brit empire. It's merely retreating back to where it all began. Well to me a great desire to leave means substantially more than 50% want that. Otherwise a referendum would be pointless. It would just confirm substantially more want to stay in than substantially want to leave. Not necessarily. Not only can there be such a thing as a substantial minority as I said in my previous post, but opinions themselves can change in a referendum campaign. So just because polling suggests a majority in favour of one side does not guarantee that it will stay that way during a campaign. In the last referendum the poll lead for the Union shrank markedly. The same could happen again, or the exact opposite could happen. The key factor is whether or not the representatives of the Scots in Westminster and Holyrood have a mandate for a referendum. They did but it was undemocratically refused them. They no longer have such a mandate at Westminster and it is not unreasonable now to await the results of the next Holyrood elections in light of a new Westminster government. If there is no mandate for such a referendum in either Westminster or Holyrood, then a referendum is off the table until that changes. Sturgeon should have used the mandate she had to hold a referendum anyway, regardless of whether Westminster approved it. She had a democratic mandate to do so. Suppressing that by force would likely have turned majority opinion in Scotland decisively against the Union. They would probably have had to let the Scots go ahead anyway whilst pointing out that it would make no difference because it was not a legal referendum. But secretly they would have been hoping for the Union side to win it. Otherwise, illegal or not, they would be forced to oppose the expressed will of the Scots which would look like holding them in the Union against their will, or honour the result anyway. Either way it would have been a massive boost for Scottish nationalism if they won even an illegal referendum. But Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP lacked the balls for it. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,702
|
Post by Steve on Aug 26, 2024 21:14:53 GMT
She'd have been personally bankrupted (for the costs) and likely jailed (abuse of public funds) had she tried. And any result of an illegal poll would be ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 26, 2024 21:39:39 GMT
Benn. The polls consistently show less want to leave than want to stay. At the beginning of this conversation I stated that (Like brexit) if the polls changed I would support a second referendum. The idea that less than half constituted a substantial desire to leave came off the back of that. Just to put it in context. Fair enough. I have not followed the polling closely in recent months so my understanding of the polls hovering either side of 50/50 might be a bit outdated. No doubt if you are wrong Amadan will provide the polling evidence in due course. I do think even 40 percent would constitute a substantial desire, just not a majority one. I see the two as having different meanings. A substantial desire can encompass a substantial minority. And if it is a large enough minority it still represents a point of view that has to be recognised and addressed. It is also reasonable to point out that in the last elections to the Scottish parliament, the Scots - via a system much more proportional than that for Westminster - voted in a majority of MSPs calling for another referendum. They thus had a democratic mandate to hold such a referendum which the Tory government at Westminster undemocratically refused to recognise. It seems likely that at the next Scottish parliament elections, a majority will be returned for MSPs in favour of the Union. This has already happened to Scottish representation at Westminster. But hopes that the issue will go away in the long term are likely to be dashed. The SNP or some other nationalist grouping will bounce back on a tide of anti-Westminster feeling at some point. At the moment the new government at Westminster is being given a chance but this is unlikely to last. Many younger Scots in particular have likely got anti-Westminster feelings in their blood so will easily become disgruntled again because of this. Those who believe in Scotland remaining part of the Union still need to persuade if they want to be and remain on the winning side of the argument in the long term I might agree if it weren't in relation to calling for another referendum. The polls:  |
|
