steve
Member
Posts: 12,767
|
Post by steve on Feb 9, 2024 7:25:53 GMT
It's disturbing that the two candidates for President in the US both are showing signs of age related cognitive decline.
While one is a malicious racist, rapist, fascist , traitor the other President Biden while well intentioned and objectively effective in office gets a far harder time of it for his increasing memory lapses.
However he doesn't for example repeatedly insist his own father was German when actually he was born in New York
He doesn't repeatedly say he stood against Barack Obama in 2016 and claims Mr Obama is still president.
Who doesn't remember that Jeb Bush wasn't his brother President George Bush.
Who doesn't say he stopped world war two, that the US army defended the airport's in the war of independence, that windmills kill sperm whales And on And on And on.
And who doesn't repeatedly descends into lie ridden word salad when he loses any chain of rationality and it's treated as normal.
But that appears to be the choice facing the U.S..
President Biden , who will at least be supported by credible sane advisers and cabinet.
Or the traitor
Who will surround himself with far right , dictatorship enabling sycophantic loons.
It's not objectively a hard choice but it could have been made easier if Biden hadn't chosen to stand for re-election.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 7:32:01 GMT
Danny - "The point of using excess deaths figures instead of recorded deaths is prcisely because people dying from some new cause might in fact be people who would have died anyway." No it isn't. That's a stupid thing to say. Excess deaths are used to measure, er...excess deaths. Cause of deaths are what we use to measure causes of deaths. You're falling through the ice here. The whole point about 'excess deaths' is it can be zero despite a huge epidemic taking place, or it could even be negative. There were some remarkable lies told during the epidemic where statistics actually summed deaths above average month by month but failed to deduct deaths below average in other months. Thats not at all how you calcualte excess deaths, it entirely misses the point of the statistc which is to look at a long enough period and ask whether the total changed from what you might have expected. Some other similar porkies have turned up where eg deaths in the covid years were compared to 5 years previous without allowing for the trend rising change in deaths. Which is because of the rising number of older people. You have from time to time argued about 'age adjusted deaths' , yet i still have no explanation how this has ever been calculated. Whereas if you just look at the raw deaths per year, you can see how they have had a rising trend in the last decade. It correlates with cuts in NHS funding under con, whereas labour had a falling trend accompanying their rising funding for the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 9, 2024 7:54:37 GMT
Danny - "Ther were some remarkable lies told during the epidemic where statistics actualyl summed deaths above average mon th by month but failed to deduct deaths below average in other months." I've never seen that, and if it happened, it would be wrong. All I've *ever* seen are cumulative excess deaths over time, which account for periods of under and over normal. "Some other similar porkies have turned up where eg deaths in the covid years were compared to 5 years previous without allowing for the trend rising change in deaths. Which is because of the rising number of older people." Again, I think not. All the credible calculations use age standardised deaths, which account for this, which I have explained already to you multiple times. As ever, now you've stated something as a fact, please provide the evidence, source, link etc. Like I say, this is not something I've ever seen, so I'm assuming you have the data, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Unless, of course, this is something else you've just made up?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,574
|
Post by neilj on Feb 9, 2024 7:55:48 GMT
The BBC gets a lot of flack, sometimes justifiably, but Evan Davis is superb here, reading out a huge list of Tory U-turns in response to Trott attacking Labour's Green agenda u turn
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,574
|
Post by neilj on Feb 9, 2024 8:01:08 GMT
Evan Davis again again shows how it's done on debt to GDP.
ED: 'This is really basic... I'm amazed you don't know that debt is rising'
He rightly doesn't let it drop
Trott completely out of her depth and not knowing the basics. It also skewers calls for tax cuts while debt to GDP rising
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 8:04:22 GMT
My own take is that Alec and Danny are much more alike than they would care to know. Haha, alec just rather confirmed what you suggest because I can agree with almost everything he posted just below you if I change the name and cause, so here is his post with the half dozen word changes necessary: as I said about Trevor, I believe it's important to constantly challenge misinformation and falsehood, wherever you see it. Swerving it is a form of acceptance, and it's precisely that 'ignore it and it will go away' mindset that let Trump, Brexit etc make ground. It's not Danny[ Alec]'s mind that I'm trying to change. Rather, I'm concerned that normalizing the kind of nonsense he promotes will allow it to become accepted thinking by others. It's another kind of virus that needs to be constantly challenged. I appreciate that this isn't a widely supported view on here, on this topic at least, but we're seeing the real world effects of covid misinformation play out now with.... a wave of serious illness in children with measles. [ lockdown induced recession] It's all part of the same thread. And no thylacine - I'm not remotely like Danny[ Alec]. I actually look for evidence to challenge what I think, and I'll go wherever that takes me. I dont know if he was teasing you when he claimed to be different, or simply trying to take on my clothes. He loves to come here with a sourced quote, but then as is sooo often the case, a study which claims or is claimed to support a certain viewpoint actually does not. Manipulating scientific evidence is an entire art form in its own right in modern politics and commerce. again that fact is common ground between us, its just which studies are false or falsely protrayed which is the difference.
I didnt start out disbelieving in the claimed risk from covid, i took it very seriously not least because I just had the worst flu of my life towards the end of 2019. Only...when zoe published that the symptom of loss of taste and smell meant it was 95% certain you had covid not some similar disease...then that rather meant it was 95% certain i had covid back in 2019. Plus I caught it second hand from a chinese from wuhan who came to the Uk ill. Plus all of hastings failed to have covid in april 2020, but then caught the new strain that winter. Plus the S of England had far less resurgence of the first spring strain when schools etc reopened that autumn, suggesting the south had really all achieved herd immunity to the first strain in the spring before lockdown...so lockdown didnt really make any difference. It didnt save any lives because it just didnt work well enough, they caught it anyway.
This is in truth a very serious matter. It means the £500-1000 billion spent on lockdown was utterly wasted. It means the world recession which Alec argues was technically not quite bad enought to meet the formal definition of three succesive months negative growth, but has now been poor growth for years, was avoidable. The general inflation now was avoidable, simply due to bad governance.
The biggest concern in this is perhaps that lockdown and isolation is still being claimed as a success and model for future action. Whereas in fact what it demonstarted was an experimental approach to managing disease - which failed dismally. Not anything you would ever want to repeat.
and then there is the sheer hypocrisy that it was fine to spend a trillion pounds at best saving a few thousand lives of already old and sick people from covid, but its not alright to spend far far less in raising NHS annual normal budget which would save more lives and especially treat more people with much better prospects for extra quality life years thereafter.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 8:10:45 GMT
I thought this quite funny. While its obvious Biden is past his best, if failing to remember was a bar to public office, then just about everyone who appeared for the covid enquiry failed to remember details of something important. Presumably all of them should immediately be barred or if they are advisors or civil servants immediately dismissed? This is just electioneering, where parties go for whatever weakness they can find. I just heard an absolutely extraordinary attack by a R4 presenter on a labour spokesperson, where she was seeking to undermine labour for abandoning their flagship policy, whereas it never was their flagship and is an area where they continue to promise far more than con. Whoever observed this is simply about con trying to find an issue which will stick against labour had this right. Its deplorable the BBC is assisting this, something which raises great concern about whether it should continue to exist at all. But its laughable to attack lab on green issues given their good record on this in office and the terrible record of con who have chosen to return to coal oil and gas by licencing further extraction, instead of boosting the new technologies. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 8:14:48 GMT
If Trump shouldn’t have done it then neither should Biden. I know it appears that Trump did it on an industrial scale but it’s the same principle. Not quite. Trump is the former president accused of retaining documents after he left office. Biden still IS president. Although I am not at all clear to what extent this issue is about a convention to hand back documents rather than actual law. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 8:18:04 GMT
What? Putin is now funding the Atholl Highlanders? |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Feb 9, 2024 8:28:27 GMT
The damaging thing politically for Biden isn't so much the charge of retaining classified documents that he shouldn't have had in his personal possession, the special counsel has declined to charge him on that, it's the evidence emerging that investigators concluded while looking into the charge that his memory had "serious limitations". This is the very claim his detractors have often made about him, but this appears to be the first time that we've gone beyond speculation, political mischief-making and social media memes. The news has just broken so I need to do a bit more reading up on it to be honest. However I do think it is also about the documents. If Trump shouldn’t have done it then neither should Biden. I know it appears that Trump did it on an industrial scale but it’s the same principle. However we fully agree what is the worst bit for Biden’s prospects of a second term - what will really do for him is the special counsel saying he’d come across in court as an old man with a very poor memory. That’ll be the killer. I’m saying all that on the face of what we’re hearing so far. There could be caveats such as is the special counsel politically motivated? If so, that’s a different matter. But if there is nothing like that then I can’t see Biden having a chance of a second term. Surely the Democrats would move on that realisation. The Guardian has a good article on this today. I'm not commenting on Biden but it does appear the special counsel has some bias. EDIT - already covered by PJW |
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Feb 9, 2024 8:33:10 GMT
Some election news East Hunsbury & Shelfleys (West Northamptonshire) Council By-Election Result: 🔶 LDM: 38.8% (+15.8) 🌳 CON: 35.3% (-16.9) 🌹 LAB: 25.9% (+1.1) Liberal Democrat GAIN from Conservative. Changes w/ 2021. Crewe Central (Cheshire East) Council By-Election Result: 🌳 CON: 43.3% (+19.8) 🌹 LAB: 35.8% (-18.9) 🏘️ PCF: 16.5% (+1.2) ♀️ WEP: 2.8% (New) 🌍 GRN: 1.6% (New) No RFM (-6.5) as previous. Conservative GAIN from Labour. Changes w/ 2023. Criccieth (Gwynedd) Council By-Election Result: 🌼 PLC: 71.9% (+30.3) 🙋 IND: 24.3% (New) 🔶 LDM: 2.1% (New) 🌳 CON: 1.7% (New) No IND (-47.3) or LAB (-11.2) as previous. Plaid Cymru GAIN from Independent. Changes w/ 2022. Not a great night for labour, standard gain for the home team , That Plaid win is pretty impressive. Part of me wonders whether the Conservative election strategy really is "See - we can win in places where Reform stand aside". Perhaps they should go further and make a grand announcement about hiving off Wales ("Well, the Boundary Commission has already cut 8 seats. Let's cut the other 32 seats, as the place is dead to us"). It would be no worse than their current apparent campaign priorities. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Feb 9, 2024 8:33:29 GMT
Important point here from the IFS.
The halving of UK Labour's green investment plans means that, other things being equal, they can meet their fiscal rules but only by maintaining the current Tory squeeze on public services budgets:
Presumably it also reduces the economic stimulus that would have come the original green investment plan budget.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 8:42:44 GMT
Be fair mercian . They are waiting to celebrate the defeat of the Tories. Nothing much else matters. It is our turn!  I think it is. In that "self indulgent " ,"fancy a change " kind of way.  |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,574
|
Post by neilj on Feb 9, 2024 8:43:54 GMT
Yougov - getting there Dave 😀 Labour lead at 25 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times CON 21 (-2) LAB 46 (+2) LDEM 9 (=) RefUK 12 (=) GRN 7 (+1) Fieldwork 7 - 8 February |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,573
|
Post by Danny on Feb 9, 2024 8:53:41 GMT
Oncologist just interviewed noted that treatment outcomes have been getting worse since 2013, because of lack of capacity. Which coincides of course with the deliberate conservative policy of austerity and the cuts they made to the labour plans to each year boost NHS funding. R4 also had someone who just explained she was referred for an urgent cancer appointment, but a month later had yet to receive even the appointment date.
These people are dying because of conservative government choice for them to die.
I'm not saying thats a wrong choice, there always has to be a choice how much to spend on health care and there will always be people who miss the cut and die untreated, or die because treatment was delayed (so really the money was wasted). But its utter hypocrisy for politicians not to acknowledge this is what they are doing. Labour in office believed it should steadily increase NHS funding to help more people. Con believed they should allow this to fall back again compared to the growing numbers of older people needing treatment.
But neither party has any solution to the steadily deteriorating national accounts except vague economic growth producing more taxes and therefore solving the ongoing deficit. Neither seems to have a grasp on reality, or be willing to state clearly the choices we face.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 9, 2024 9:00:06 GMT
I wonder if it now makes some political sense for Biden and his advisers to consider whether he should agree to undergo some cognitive function tests and then publish the results?
Normally, I'd recoil at advocating such personal intrusion into the life of a public figure, but the question about Biden's mental faculties has started to become central to him seeking re-election.
I would suggest that if the tests showed a serious deterioration in his memory then they shouldn't be published but used instead as a reason for Biden withdrawing from the race. If some minor memory loss is discovered, but is in keeping with someone in their mid 80s, then I don't think that would be an issue. I should imagine Reagan, had he undergone similar tests in his second term, would have shown symptoms too. Maybe the results for Biden detect no problem at all. That's possible too.
Either way, I don't really see an escape route out of this beyond Biden undergoing some sort of testing, especially after the recent revelations and claims about serious memory impairment as long as seven years ago.
Like the special counsel observations, though, nothing will escape the allegations of political bias and fake news, but a clean(ish) bill of health for Biden will help him and may then put the pressure back on an increasingly deranged Trump to do something similar.
Maybe he undergoes the same tests conducted by the same independent body?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,574
|
Post by neilj on Feb 9, 2024 9:03:22 GMT
First for me, just been blocked by the Sun's Harry Cole for responding to one of his tweets about the Labour U turn with a link to the latest Yougov poll
No nastiness on my part, seems some of the so called free speech merchants are a little thin skinned
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 9, 2024 9:04:39 GMT
Yougov - getting there Dave 😀 Labour lead at 25 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times CON 21 (-2) LAB 46 (+2) LDEM 9 (=) RefUK 12 (=) GRN 7 (+1) Fieldwork 7 - 8 February This could be the equivalent of West Ham doing the double in terms of Dave's ecstasy quotient. 🤔😛🤣 EDIT: It could also bring about Anthony Wells resignation from You Gov. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,156
|
Post by domjg on Feb 9, 2024 9:14:00 GMT
It is our turn! I think it is. In that "self indulgent " ,"fancy a change " kind of way. There's "fancy a change" as in desperately wanting to see the back of the worst and most destructive govt this country has endured in modern times and replace it with those who possees morals and principles and then there's Barbara's sister's "fancy a change" which I recognised only too well from some I knew and is basically 'lets destroy everything and see what comes out of it because I personally feel protected enough from the outcome' (whether that's true or not) but f* anyone else who isn't. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,767
|
Post by steve on Feb 9, 2024 9:24:01 GMT
In today's edition of RichSplaining with Nick Ferrari .
Nick explained that when he was a kid if a teacher failed to turn up to school then two classes could have been merged.
For Ferrari this would have meant around 16 students in his fee charging school while for the rest of us it would have been around 70.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 9, 2024 9:28:38 GMT
Just a slightly sobering thought about the suitability of octogenarians holding and/or seeking high political office. At the ages that Trump and Biden have now reached, serial election winners and long -serving Prime Ministers, Wilson and Thatcher would both by now have been in advanced stages of dementia.
They may well have had relatively early onset versions of the disease, and neither Trump nor Biden may be suffering anything similar at all, but the chances of them experiencing cognitive decline at their respective ages is very high now I would think.
Hence my notion of politicians at their ages undergoing some tests that reassure the people they seek to serve. I don't want to indulge in layman's neurology here so I think these issues should be professionally verified and proved for the avoidance of all doubt and perpetual voodoo speculation.
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Feb 9, 2024 9:33:55 GMT
Yougov - getting there Dave 😀 Labour lead at 25 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times CON 21 (-2) LAB 46 (+2) LDEM 9 (=) RefUK 12 (=) GRN 7 (+1) Fieldwork 7 - 8 February These figures are very close to the average per YouGov from their first 6 GB polls of 2024: Con 21.3% Lab 45.8% LD 9% Ref 11.3% Grn 7% |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Feb 9, 2024 9:39:44 GMT
Lab's ditching of the £28bn pledge
From my - admittedly atypical - perspective yesterday was all about the silver lining, which was that Lab gifted some airtime and column inches to a notably diverse coalition of politicians, climate policy people and environmentalists to try to hammer home why action on climate doesn't belong in the 'nice to have, if we can afford it' basket.
I made an effort to read/listen to some of the coverage and I think it was easy for voters to get the impression that although Lab has removed the price tag it is keeping the policies - which would be nonsensical and looks less than candid. The alternative interpretation is that the £28bn was only ever an arbitrary figure, a piece of greenwashing designed to hook green-minded voters. The timing of the formal U-turn is also sub-optimal, because Lab has been encouraging voters to blame the Truss-Kwarteng interlude for a lot of the current economic woes, so many people will ask why, if the policy is being dumped on affordability grounds, it wasn't dumped - or at least caveated/scaled down - back in 2022.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 9:47:49 GMT
I think it is. In that "self indulgent " ,"fancy a change " kind of way. There's "fancy a change" as in desperately wanting to see the back of the worst and most destructive govt this country has endured in modern times and replace it with those who possees morals and principles and then there's Barbara's sister's "fancy a change" which I recognised only too well from some I knew and is basically 'lets destroy everything and see what comes out of it because I personally feel protected enough from the outcome' (whether that's true or not) but f* anyone else who isn't. The voice of moral superiority always comes naturally to you doesn't it ? The list of sub-optimal degenerates you seem know grows longer. The whole of England I think according to a recent post. You must feel lonely up there. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 9, 2024 9:49:04 GMT
Yougov - getting there Dave 😀 Labour lead at 25 points in latest YouGov poll for The Times CON 21 (-2) LAB 46 (+2) LDEM 9 (=) RefUK 12 (=) GRN 7 (+1) Fieldwork 7 - 8 February These figures are very close to the average per YouGov from their first 6 GB polls of 2024. Their actual averages are: Con 21.3% Lab 45.8% LD 9% Ref 11.3% Grn 7% Thanks once again for all your diligence and psephological research in terms of opinion polling, but there is a school of thought on this site, dedicated as it is to the discussion of political opinion polls, that people aren't interested in the "scores" and how "the teams are doing". That's only for activists and people totally alienated from "real voters". Hence, while I greatly appreciate the work that you do, I fear I may be in a very small minority that is interested in all this scores stuff. I hope you continue though, and others like you too, even though it's quite possible that you are all howling forlornly into the wind. EDIT. A further whimsical thought. Looking at that latest opinion poll from You Gov, I'm staggered to see that only 12% of the British electorate can be categorised as real voters. Surely there's more of them than that who want to give the complacent elite a good kick in the wotsits?? |
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Feb 9, 2024 9:50:30 GMT
I'm not sure that Starmer's line of 'we abandoned the green policies because the Tories crashed the economy' will stand up in October/November. Government borrowing doesn't mean much to the average voter - inflation and mortgage rates are what worry people, especially in the Tory heartlands. Both are dropping rapidly and house prices have taken off again which will breed consumer confidence - so I think the result will be a lot closer than currently being predicted.
On the other hand I think Labour will still win, and it will be much better for their prospects in government if the economy is reasonably good when they take over.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Feb 9, 2024 9:58:50 GMT
Just a slightly sobering thought about the suitability of octogenarians holding and/or seeking high political office. At the ages that Trump and Biden have now reached, serial election winners and long -serving Prime Ministers, Wilson and Thatcher would both by now have been in advanced stages of dementia. They may well have had relatively early onset versions of the disease, and neither Trump nor Biden may be suffering anything similar at all, but the chances of them experiencing cognitive decline at their respective ages is very high now I would think. Hence my notion of politicians at their ages undergoing some tests that reassure the people they seek to serve. I don't want to indulge in layman's neurology here so I think these issues should be professionally verified and proved for the avoidance of all doubt and perpetual voodoo speculation. There are loads of examples of famous people in their 80s and 90s who are as sharp as they ever were. (David Attenburgh, Sheila Hancokck, Judy Dench etc. ) I'm unhappy with a narrative that seeds a genrealised acceptance that old means doddery and not on the ball (Alzheimers excepted). I'm not against both Trump and Biden being under scrutiny if they are exhibiting symptoms of not being able to recall facts and figures but we must be really careful not to stereotype old people. We have 3 people at our tea dance aged 95, 91 and 90 and all three are not only good physical dancers but are always smartly and stylishly turned out and as quick to learn new dances and recall old ones as the rest of us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 10:01:04 GMT
Lab's ditching of the £28bn pledge From my - admittedly atypical - perspective yesterday was all about the silver lining, which was that Lab gifted some airtime and column inches to a notably diverse coalition of politicians, climate policy people and environmentalists to try to hammer home why action on climate doesn't belong in the 'nice to have, if we can afford it' basket. I made an effort to read/listen to some of the coverage and I think it was easy for voters to get the impression that although Lab has removed the price tag it is keeping the policies - which would be nonsensical and looks less than candid. The alternative interpretation is that the £28bn was only ever an arbitrary figure, a piece of greenwashing designed to hook green-minded voters. The timing of the formal U-turn is also sub-optimal, because Lab has been encouraging voters to blame the Truss-Kwarteng interlude for a lot of the current economic woes, so many people will ask why, if the policy is being dumped on affordability grounds, it wasn't dumped - or at least caveated/scaled down - back in 2022. I think this is a pretty clear signal that Reeves wants to make absolutely certain that the perceived sheet anchor on Labour's electoral performance-a reputation for taxing & spending-will not be a factor this time. Which in turn means that Starmer's overiding objective is to gain power and decide what he does with it afterwards. Given that the Tories have destroyed their own prospects of victory , and the Pyong Yang sized polling lead , one wonders why Starmer cannot be more forthcoming about his plans in government. Unless he doesn't have any yet ? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Feb 9, 2024 10:19:06 GMT
Lab's ditching of the £28bn pledge From my - admittedly atypical - perspective yesterday was all about the silver lining, which was that Lab gifted some airtime and column inches to a notably diverse coalition of politicians, climate policy people and environmentalists to try to hammer home why action on climate doesn't belong in the 'nice to have, if we can afford it' basket. I made an effort to read/listen to some of the coverage and I think it was easy for voters to get the impression that although Lab has removed the price tag it is keeping the policies - which would be nonsensical and looks less than candid. The alternative interpretation is that the £28bn was only ever an arbitrary figure, a piece of greenwashing designed to hook green-minded voters. The timing of the formal U-turn is also sub-optimal, because Lab has been encouraging voters to blame the Truss-Kwarteng interlude for a lot of the current economic woes, so many people will ask why, if the policy is being dumped on affordability grounds, it wasn't dumped - or at least caveated/scaled down - back in 2022. You make a good point about the dubious credibility and questionable adroitness of Labour's political choreography surrounding the announcement of the dropping of the always slightly mystical £28 billion headline figure to their green investment plan, but it may prove, in the long term, to be sensible political footwork. It is, after all, getting to the bobbing and weaving, ducking and diving stage ahead of an election that may now be only months away. There seemed to be a sort of sympathetic audience on last night's BBC's Question Time to Streeting's slightly torturous, but typically cleverly prosecuted, explanation. His argument was that it was better to moderate the offer now, before people voted rather than after. The argument being that voter distrust was high anyway and politicians over-promising and under delivering had become the lingua franca accepted norm of British politics. Streeting's argument was that Labour would be different and only promise what they knew they could deliver. Empty rhetoric and the poverty of managed expectation? Maybe, but the audience last night seemed to welcome the degree of honesty and realism involved in Labour's revised green investment plan. As CJ might have observed. Streeting didn't go about winning elections without a good dollop of empty rhetoric! Are Labour surfing voter cynicism now rather than being submerged by it? (no more aquatic metaphors for now!) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 10:23:41 GMT
It is our turn! I think it is. In that "self indulgent " ,"fancy a change " kind of way. As compared to what exactly? The Tories’ “Country before Party at all times.” philosophy when they are campaigning to get back into government? And I doubt if anyone on this site who will be voting Labour - or Lib Dem if best placed- will be doing so for “self indulgent” reasons. Most seem to be fairly comfortably off and are predominantly concerned about the many millions who are not. Largely as a result of fourteen years of Tory governments. |
|
