The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Davkaus]

1 minute ago, Risso said:

Taylor Swift won't have the first clue who that hypocritical c*** Phillipson is. The tickets were freebies from the FA who own Wembley. The information is easily accessible on the UK Parliament website, along with all her other "snout in the trough" behaviour. There's no way that ticket value is realistic, either.

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4046/registeredinterests

Name of donor: The Football Association 
Address of donor: Wembley Stadium, PO Box 1966, London SW1P 98Q 
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Tickets and hospitality for me and a guest to the Taylor Swift concert on 15 August, value £522.54

 

It does form a pattern doesn't it, this is a different incident to the one we were talking about in the posts above, which was Darren Jones, whose tickets (totalling £3k+) were from the Premier League.

Just why are all of these football organisations quite so keen to curry favour with the new government. What a mystery.

Quote

Name of donor: The Football Association Premier League Limited
Address of donor: 57 North Wharf Road, London W2 1HQ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Four tickets with hospitality to attend the Taylor Swift concert at Wembley Stadium, value £3,400

 

[bickster]

16 minutes ago, Risso said:

There's no way that ticket value is realistic, either.

Yes far too high I agree.  

[Risso]

Wes Streeting thinks that these donations are "a noble cause". I mean, the last lot in government were mostly absolute scum of the earth, but did Greasy Starmer, Angela NoBrayner and Wes Craven's Nightmare on Downing Street really have to go "hold my beer..." quite so quickly?

[Davkaus]

It's not all bad news, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the free school breakfasts policy.

On the other hand, the agenda for today, not such a fan. The latest red meat seems to be "You know who's had it too easy over the last 14 years? Benefits claimants".

I've no sympathy for people fiddling benefits they aren't entitled to, but every step you take to try and claw pennies back makes life more difficult for those who really need it, and I find it very difficult to believe there's much more illegitimate claiming to be efficiently blocked with how hostile the process is these days

[Davkaus]

16 minutes ago, Risso said:

Wes Streeting thinks that these donations are "a noble cause". I mean, the last lot in government were mostly absolute scum of the earth, but did Greasy Starmer, Angela NoBrayner and Wes Craven's Nightmare on Downing Street really have to go "hold my beer..." quite so quickly?

Have a look at how much was generously donated to Streeting over the last couple of years and it all starts to make sense.

John Armitage and Peter Hearn have comfortably given him 6 figures each over the past couple of years, he apparently has a very expensive office to run. Nothing to do with Hearn's interest in NHS outsourcing recruitment, I'm sure.

Nice little donation from Calyx last month as well. I wonder why a clinical trials company is donating thousands of pounds to the health secretary.

It's all completely corrupt, but he's one of the absolute worst, the NHS being in his hands troubles me.

Edited 3 hours ago by Davkaus

[PaulC]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

It's not all bad news, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the free school breakfasts policy.

On the other hand, the agenda for today, not such a fan. The latest red meat seems to be "You know who's had it too easy over the last 14 years? Benefits claimants".

I've no sympathy for people fiddling benefits they aren't entitled to, but every step you take to try and claw pennies back makes life more difficult for those who really need it, and I find it very difficult to believe there's much more illegitimate claiming to be efficiently blocked with how hostile the process is these days

Conservatives had policies into to tackle this type of thing. Not sure how Labour think they will have any more success here. 

[Davkaus]

Just now, PaulC said:

Conservatives had policies into to tackle this type of thing. Not sure how Labour think they will have any more success here. 

By simply being more competent bastards, I assume.

I'll do some research when I get the time but I suspect the only reason that the policies of the DWP are cost effective have been because of the number of vulnerable people left to die by the callous bastards. They're happy to deny claims and require people to regularly demonstrate that they still have lifelong incurable disabilities knowing that some people simply won't make it through the fight.

I will wait for the speech until I blow my top, but if Labour are doubling down, I'll be disgusted.

[Davkaus]

2029 manifesto idea: cage fights between small boat passengers and people receiving DLA, with exclusive broadcast rights sold to GBNews.

[PaulC]

16 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

By simply being more competent bastards, I assume.

I'll do some research when I get the time but I suspect the only reason that the policies of the DWP are cost effective have been because of the number of vulnerable people left to die by the callous bastards. They're happy to deny claims and require people to regularly demonstrate that they still have lifelong incurable disabilities knowing that some people simply won't make it through the fight.

I will wait for the speech until I blow my top, but if Labour are doubling down, I'll be disgusted.

Maybe they just don't realise how difficult things are. There a lot of strong words coming out but reality is different to what they believe can be done.  Will they produce enough social housing when Rayner admits the stocks are diminishing each year and she still believes in the right to buy your council house like she did.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

An idealist might think everyone born here deserves the opportunity of a safe secure home, however ‘umble it might be. Converted sea containers on brown field sites where you can decorate as you see fit, and you have the front door key.

However, this obviously needs to be balanced against the needs of the market to receive an income stream that will allow investors the security of a return or yield sufficient for them to borrow against and use as leverage to enable bonuses for elite level management so that they can lobby government for increased yields which will enhance GDP making the UK an attractive proposition for international money.

So, I don’t know what that makes me, in that I’m a bit more of an option A kind of person than an option B sort of person.

Perhaps justifiably cynical, but also a good example of why idealism sucks for government- but not in the way you put it.

Because your idealism appears exclusive to people born here, which seems discriminatory against naturalised Brits, against people who come here to work as nurses or whatever. It seems discriminatory against people granted asylum or the right to remain. So other “idealists” will call it racist. And then there’s a big argument and nothing gets done. Reform will shout about housing Brits in ISO containers, while immigrants get to stay in Hotels at tax payer expense. Corbynistas will say it’s racist, Tories will complain that it stops the market building decent homes for people…

A less idealistic government might think “there’s not enough homes where they are needed and seek to change planning law, seek to penalise or incentivise builders who have land, but are not building on it, to actually build homes, instead of keeping prices high by restricting the market. They might seek to regenerate areas where there are houses, but few jobs…

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

Perhaps justifiably cynical, but also a good example of why idealism sucks for government- but not in the way you put it.

Because your idealism appears exclusive to people born here, which seems discriminatory against naturalised Brits, against people who come here to work as nurses or whatever. It seems discriminatory against people granted asylum or the right to remain. So other “idealists” will call it racist. And then there’s a big argument and nothing gets done. Reform will shout about housing Brits in ISO containers, while immigrants get to stay in Hotels at tax payer expense. Corbynistas will say it’s racist, Tories will complain that it stops the market building decent homes for people…

A less idealistic government might think “there’s not enough homes where they are needed and seek to change planning law, seek to penalise or incentivise builders who have land, but are not building on it, to actually build homes, instead of keeping prices high by restricting the market. They might seek to regenerate areas where there are houses, but few jobs…

It was an answer knocked out as I was writing it.

Knowing how hard something is, and being able to list the top 100 reasons why it’s hard are what lead to us never having social housing, never having one guage for railways, never having health and safety legislation and of course never having adopted the NHS model.

If the are a hundred reasons for not having a simple solution to a simple problem, how many reasons must there be for not having a solution that is a delivery vehicle set up by a foreign government or hedge fund to extract profit from the same problem?

 

[Rob182]

15 hours ago, Genie said:

My guess is someone rich bought them and then gifted them.

Check your DMs

[Genie]

18 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

Check your DMs

I have nothing in my DM’s?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

It was an answer knocked out as I was writing it.

Knowing how hard something is, and being able to list the top 100 reasons why it’s hard are what lead to us never having social housing, never having one guage for railways, never having health and safety legislation and of course never having adopted the NHS model.

If the are a hundred reasons for not having a simple solution to a simple problem, how many reasons must there be for not having a solution that is a delivery vehicle set up by a foreign government or hedge fund to extract profit from the same problem?

Yeah, I know this is a quick exchange, not a deep Conversation, yet appreciation of the 100 reasons is essential to good policy making. Never mind the consequences is not.

I suspect we’re mostly in agreement- I certainly wouldn’t argue about “foreign governments and corporations and delivery vehicles, or as you said, “the needs of the market to receive an income stream that will allow investors the security of a return or yield sufficient for them to borrow against and use as leverage to enable bonuses for elite level management“. These are bad things, too.  I mean they’re pretty much the natural outcome of right wing, or free market idealism, just a different idealism to yours or mine.

[Wainy316]

 

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

 

Pork Markets, it’s official, they are all the same.