(Northern accent) Aye. We 'ad ter mek do wi'an Ole in't road.....
Seriously, though, point well made.
Our not-lamented Father F**kwit used to sit in our local Community Centre café (in one of the poorest parishes in the country), and boast about his TWO - sometimes THREE! - luxury cruises per year....talk about being insensitive, and out-of-touch with the peeps around you...
The same prat man complained bitterly when his Lovely Wife had funding for her disabled (adopted) daughter withdrawn, by a certain very poor London borough, when the young lady reached a certain age.
He forgot to take into account his and Lovely Wife's TWO houses, TWO cars, TWO motor-bikes, along with savings and investments. Many of the families which that Council was trying to support with the few pennies vouchsafed to them by our Generous Government™ were lucky to be able to afford TWO tins of baked beans a week....
No blame to the Council concerned, who must have a Hell Of A Job allocating funds appropriately.....not that Treeza Trainwreck and the Toddlers give a flying f**k.......
One of the insidious aspects of private education is it insulates children from the realities of inequality and poverty, which makes it much easier to support policies which exacerbate both.
Absolutely this.
I don't have a problem with millionaires in the cabinet per se. I think it is entirely possible to be rich and still have insight and understanding to those who are hard up. But it doesn't come naturally, you have to work at it. ...
This clique of (mostly) Tory MPs have no insight into the stresses and struggles of someone like me, who is well paid. Not a hope of understanding the daily lives of those less well off than me. Because they do not think they need to try.
It's something that extends across the policies of the current so-called government. Universal Credit is a prime example. Payments monthly because it "matches working patterns", except for the majority on benefit their experience is of weekly payments. Adjustments in payments in retrospect, meaning some months payments come up short which is OK if you've a small buffer of savings to fall back on, but how many on benefits manage to have savings of three months salary as recommended? An expectation that people can balance budgets and prioritise spending. It's a system devised by people who's experience of life is radically different from people living hand to mouth.
Aye, but the attitude of "it doesn't matter if your monthly payments vary, you'll get it anyway" only works if you've a buffer of some form against the lower payment months. There's an assumption there about cash flow which assumes something like having something "for a rainy day" - I only mentioned the three months thing because that's what financial advisors suggest. It makes no difference if it's three months or three days ... many people have nothing at all, there's no point saving for a rainy day when it's pouring down and the flood is about to drag you away.
And there seems to be an importnat Catch 22 there: if you have enough money to wait until your benefits come through, you won't qualify for benefits. If you don't, you will qualify for benefits, but are expected to get by until they come through.
It is a prime example of this governments vicious hatred of people.
Talk of a deal between labour and Conservatives requiring both sides to compromise. Fat chance of that with Treeza still in charge of the Conservatives. "Compromise" is one of those words that she doesn't understand. It's like someone ripped a few pages from the 'c' section of her dictionary - compromise, consensus, collaboration, consultation, compassion ... all words she has no comprehension of. Oh, and comprehension ...
No Teresa does understand compromise but thinks it happens to someone else.
OK, I can accept that. If she doesn't have a horse in a race then she might be able to see people create a compromise. Just as if she's not involved in a decision then there may be consultation. But, if she takes charge then there's no room for consultation or compromise, it's her way or the highway. She's taken those words out of her lexicon, at least with the meaning everyone else puts to those words.
No Teresa does understand compromise but thinks it happens to someone else.
OK, I can accept that. If she doesn't have a horse in a race then she might be able to see people create a compromise. Just as if she's not involved in a decision then there may be consultation. But, if she takes charge then there's no room for consultation or compromise, it's her way or the highway. She's taken those words out of her lexicon, at least with the meaning everyone else puts to those words.
She seems to expect others to change what they are saying to match her position. For instance she gave the SNP a list of changes they needed to make. She expects compromise from others while she pretends to compromise.
But, compromise needs both sides to move towards the middle. Demanding one side change while not offering to even shuffle your feet isn't finding a compromise - it's trying to impose your views on others.
But, compromise needs both sides to move towards the middle. Demanding one side change while not offering to even shuffle your feet isn't finding a compromise - it's trying to impose your views on others.
In my days as a Union rep. I found a surpising number of employers who thought like that; my members, hardly ever.
The employers seemed to think that my job was to persuade the members to agree with whatever the employer wanted, and they were often rather surprised - and sometimes offended - that it didn't work like that. And then when a ballot for industrial action was taken they really couldn't see why.
Treeza is the absolute epitome of this way of looking at things.
Ironically, it's Treeza rather than JC taking us back to the 1970s. The whole country is on strike against the deal she has cobbled together. There is, admittedly, something horribly menacing about that coalition of totally opposed forces, but she is entirely deaf to it.
She gives all the signs of being will to compromise by saying things like she will talk with Corbyn. She however will not. So yes it is not really compromise, just the promise of it.
I had a housemate like this once. Where most reasonable people would think, “you want one thing, and I want this other thing – how can we meet in the middle and both get most of what we want?”, her approach was: “you want one thing, I want this other thing – I must persuade you that you really want the same thing I do.” Suffice to say it didn’t make for harmonious living.
It's getting quite close to gaslighting. May erases the other point of view, and focuses on her own. Negotiating with her must be queasy making.
In fact, you could say that the whole country has been gaslighted, so for example, Brexiters who used to support the single market now describe it with horror.
You can also see it with questions, so when May is asked something, she erases that, and answers a different question.
... when May is asked something, she erases that, and answers a different question.
Isn't that what politicians do though? I'm reminded of some Tory or other about 20-odd years ago being asked the same question several times by (I think) Jeremy Paxman, and just keeping on replying to a different question.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Mrs. May - I just wonder if it isn't something that politicians are programmed to do.
... when May is asked something, she erases that, and answers a different question.
Isn't that what politicians do though? I'm reminded of some Tory or other about 20-odd years ago being asked the same question several times by (I think) Jeremy Paxman, and just keeping on replying to a different question.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Mrs. May - I just wonder if it isn't something that politicians are programmed to do.
I am not sure if Howard and May are representative of all politicians.
One of the side-effects of Paxo's fame is that the 'aggressive' interview came to be seen as the only way to question politicians. I am not sure this is entirely constructive - I mean, I think politicians should be held to account, they should be made to face difficult questions. However, there are too many interviews I've seen where the questioner will not allow the politician to even begin to answer - especially when the premise of the question is flawed. Equally, there are far too many political interviews these days where politicians are allowed to spout unadulterated hogwash without being challenged.
I long for good quality interviews; Krishnan Guru-Murthy has become a bit of a star in recent years for this.
Eddie Mair on PM was famous for giving politicians the time and space to really dig a huge pit for themselves, and then ending the interview before they could scrabble out again.
Eddie Mair on PM was famous for giving politicians the time and space to really dig a huge pit for themselves, and then ending the interview before they could scrabble out again.
I've heard him a bit on LBC; he does seem to be very competent.
Got it in one - thank you! I was racking my brains trying to remember who the victim politician in question was!
I totally agree that while politicians must be expected to account for their actions (and answer questions put to them in a reasonable and polite manner), there are some reporters and pundits these days who seem to think that their viewers are more interested in the channel's party line than the replies of the interviewees.
So once the Easter break is over what next? With Treeza’s popularity crumbling like the Palace of Westminster, will there be any movement? The wolves are surrounded the carcass with Hunt and Jarvid leading the pack. That can must have been kicked to pieces now.
Whenever I’ve been inclined to feel a hint of sympathy for her, I remember her time in the Home Office and the fact that she has lined her husband’s pockets with contracts for G4S and not been investigated for it. The feeling evaporates quite swiftly.
Whenever I’ve been inclined to feel a hint of sympathy for her, I remember her time in the Home Office and the fact that she has lined her husband’s pockets with contracts for G4S and not been investigated for it. The feeling evaporates quite swiftly.
I believe that accusation was shown to be wrong - but I have no evidence at this point.
She did create the hostile environment. She did send the vans around saying "Go Home". She was a total steaming heap of shit.
I have no real sympathy for her. I don't like to see people suffer, but she has brought this on herself. It is like someone hitting their head with a hammer - the level of sympathy is limited becasue she is hitting her own head with the hammer.
Whenever I’ve been inclined to feel a hint of sympathy for her, I remember her time in the Home Office and the fact that she has lined her husband’s pockets with contracts for G4S and not been investigated for it. The feeling evaporates quite swiftly.
I believe that accusation was shown to be wrong - but I have no evidence at this point.
She did create the hostile environment. She did send the vans around saying "Go Home". She was a total steaming heap of shit.
I have no real sympathy for her. I don't like to see people suffer, but she has brought this on herself. It is like someone hitting their head with a hammer - the level of sympathy is limited becasue she is hitting her own head with the hammer.
She bashed a lot of innocent people over the head with that hammer as well. And please can we remember that she did not bring in merely the hostile environment for those she deemed to be 'foreign' - she brought in the very hostile environment, as a result of which people have died, have been exiled, have been refused medical treatment, have lost their jobs, have had to sleep on the street, and have seen their families broken up. There are no words harsh enough to describe the evil she has done. I shouldn't say or feel this, but I truly loathe her for what she has said and done.
Eddie Mair on PM was famous for giving politicians the time and space to really dig a huge pit for themselves, and then ending the interview before they could scrabble out again.
I think one of his strengths is to be able to deliver a damning line in way that makes it sound throwaway to the person he was interviewing.
And while people are lauding the interviewers of yesteryear - I suspect the context in which they have to operate has moved on significantly since then.
Today Treeza has been expounding about Stephen Lawrence Day - for those who don't know, he was the black British teenager murdered on the evening of April 22, 1993 by a racist gang, the members of which escaped conviction for several years because of what was deemed the ‘systematic racism’ of the Metropolitan Police.
Had Stephen not been murdered, no doubt Treeza would have been trying to deport him and his family as part of her ‘very hostile environment’. Her cynicism and hypocrisy know no bounds.
There seem to several. They can come in as the saviour of the country and up holder of the original vote and look wonderful. If I was Treeza I would call a general election and feed the lot of them to the wolves
There seem to several. They can come in as the saviour of the country and up holder of the original vote and look wonderful. If I was Treeza I would call a general election and feed the lot of them to the wolves
If she did, the Tories would be shredded, and she would get the blame. Rightly, I think; and Boris would end up running the mere rump of a once-pround party.
None of the 1922 Committee. It's the peanut gallery of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (The Monday Club OTOH is a better dressed offshoot of the EDL).
There seem to several. They can come in as the saviour of the country and up holder of the original vote and look wonderful. If I was Treeza I would call a general election and feed the lot of them to the wolves
If she did, the Tories would be shredded, and she would get the blame. Rightly, I think; and Boris would end up running the mere rump of a once-pround party.
There seem to several. They can come in as the saviour of the country and up holder of the original vote and look wonderful. If I was Treeza I would call a general election and feed the lot of them to the wolves
If she did, the Tories would be shredded, and she would get the blame. Rightly, I think; and Boris would end up running the mere rump of a once-pround party.
Bring it on!
I doubt it very much. The Tory Party, more than any other, has an utterly reliable hard-core vote, mostly because, unlike the other parties their voters turn out come what may. I believe the postal vote helps too. I don't see their share dropping below 22% and even at that low figure they will probably hang onto at least 200 seats, thanks to the alternatives being divided.
Boris might get the leadership, but would he want it without power?
Boris might get the leadership, but would he want it without power?
That's an interesting point. With all the rumours and maneuvering, it's been assumed by most that it is a certainty Boris will make a leadership bid... but if the Tories weren't in Government, I think that changes things. I find it hard to believe he would be interested in the hard work and little reward inherent in leading the Opposition.
So Our Belived Teresa has been empty-chaired in the conversations with Greta Thunberg. Very publically. All the other party leaders where there listening and engaging except Weezy-pops.
The BBC claimed Downing Street had not had an official invite to the Swedish meeting. Has anybody supplied proof she was invited? Bad faith can work both ways, you know.
The BBC claimed Downing Street had not had an official invite to the Swedish meeting. Has anybody supplied proof she was invited? Bad faith can work both ways, you know.
Well, she certainly invited herself to Lyra McKee’s funeral, and was among the last to stand up when the officiating priest read the riot act about the behaviour of politicians, and was duly given a standing ovation - and how often does that happen during a funeral?
I think she feels no shame because she never feels she has done anything shameful. None so blind...
The BBC claimed Downing Street had not had an official invite to the Swedish meeting. Has anybody supplied proof she was invited? Bad faith can work both ways, you know.
It can, it can - but the point is that she’s giving tRump a state occasion and has made no attempt to address the climate protests head on.
Can you name a politician who is? I suspect this is one of those issues where hand-wringing from the opposition benches is much, much easier than enacting policy - and staying elected.
Comments
(Northern accent) Aye. We 'ad ter mek do wi'an Ole in't road.....
Seriously, though, point well made.
Our not-lamented Father F**kwit used to sit in our local Community Centre café (in one of the poorest parishes in the country), and boast about his TWO - sometimes THREE! - luxury cruises per year....talk about being insensitive, and out-of-touch with the peeps around you...
The same prat man complained bitterly when his Lovely Wife had funding for her disabled (adopted) daughter withdrawn, by a certain very poor London borough, when the young lady reached a certain age.
He forgot to take into account his and Lovely Wife's TWO houses, TWO cars, TWO motor-bikes, along with savings and investments. Many of the families which that Council was trying to support with the few pennies vouchsafed to them by our Generous Government™ were lucky to be able to afford TWO tins of baked beans a week....
No blame to the Council concerned, who must have a Hell Of A Job allocating funds appropriately.....not that Treeza Trainwreck and the Toddlers give a flying f**k.......
It is a prime example of this governments vicious hatred of people.
She seems to expect others to change what they are saying to match her position. For instance she gave the SNP a list of changes they needed to make. She expects compromise from others while she pretends to compromise.
In my days as a Union rep. I found a surpising number of employers who thought like that; my members, hardly ever.
The employers seemed to think that my job was to persuade the members to agree with whatever the employer wanted, and they were often rather surprised - and sometimes offended - that it didn't work like that. And then when a ballot for industrial action was taken they really couldn't see why.
Treeza is the absolute epitome of this way of looking at things.
In fact, you could say that the whole country has been gaslighted, so for example, Brexiters who used to support the single market now describe it with horror.
You can also see it with questions, so when May is asked something, she erases that, and answers a different question.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending Mrs. May - I just wonder if it isn't something that politicians are programmed to do.
You're thinking of this interview on Newsnight with Michael Howard. Famously Paxo asked the same question 12 times.
I am not sure if Howard and May are representative of all politicians.
One of the side-effects of Paxo's fame is that the 'aggressive' interview came to be seen as the only way to question politicians. I am not sure this is entirely constructive - I mean, I think politicians should be held to account, they should be made to face difficult questions. However, there are too many interviews I've seen where the questioner will not allow the politician to even begin to answer - especially when the premise of the question is flawed. Equally, there are far too many political interviews these days where politicians are allowed to spout unadulterated hogwash without being challenged.
I long for good quality interviews; Krishnan Guru-Murthy has become a bit of a star in recent years for this.
AFZ
I've heard him a bit on LBC; he does seem to be very competent.
C4 news seems to be stepping up to the plate, where other news organistations are not. Good on them - they are winning a loyal following.
I totally agree that while politicians must be expected to account for their actions (and answer questions put to them in a reasonable and polite manner), there are some reporters and pundits these days who seem to think that their viewers are more interested in the channel's party line than the replies of the interviewees.
Good, Wholesome, Nutritious, Honest, BRITISH™ Baked Beans, I hope!
Enquiring minds need to know.....
I believe that accusation was shown to be wrong - but I have no evidence at this point.
She did create the hostile environment. She did send the vans around saying "Go Home". She was a total steaming heap of shit.
I have no real sympathy for her. I don't like to see people suffer, but she has brought this on herself. It is like someone hitting their head with a hammer - the level of sympathy is limited becasue she is hitting her own head with the hammer.
She bashed a lot of innocent people over the head with that hammer as well. And please can we remember that she did not bring in merely the hostile environment for those she deemed to be 'foreign' - she brought in the very hostile environment, as a result of which people have died, have been exiled, have been refused medical treatment, have lost their jobs, have had to sleep on the street, and have seen their families broken up. There are no words harsh enough to describe the evil she has done. I shouldn't say or feel this, but I truly loathe her for what she has said and done.
I think one of his strengths is to be able to deliver a damning line in way that makes it sound throwaway to the person he was interviewing.
And while people are lauding the interviewers of yesteryear - I suspect the context in which they have to operate has moved on significantly since then.
Had Stephen not been murdered, no doubt Treeza would have been trying to deport him and his family as part of her ‘very hostile environment’. Her cynicism and hypocrisy know no bounds.
If she did, the Tories would be shredded, and she would get the blame. Rightly, I think; and Boris would end up running the mere rump of a once-pround party.
Bring it on!
None of the 1922 Committee. It's the peanut gallery of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (The Monday Club OTOH is a better dressed offshoot of the EDL).
Agreed.
I doubt it very much. The Tory Party, more than any other, has an utterly reliable hard-core vote, mostly because, unlike the other parties their voters turn out come what may. I believe the postal vote helps too. I don't see their share dropping below 22% and even at that low figure they will probably hang onto at least 200 seats, thanks to the alternatives being divided.
Boris might get the leadership, but would he want it without power?
That's an interesting point. With all the rumours and maneuvering, it's been assumed by most that it is a certainty Boris will make a leadership bid... but if the Tories weren't in Government, I think that changes things. I find it hard to believe he would be interested in the hard work and little reward inherent in leading the Opposition.
AFZ
She will regret that.
“Theresa May's guide to social etiquette
16-year old Swedish climate activist working to save the planet: avoid meeting at all costs.
72-year old lying, narcissistic, racist, misogynist president happy to destroy the planet: grant state visit.”
Well, she certainly invited herself to Lyra McKee’s funeral, and was among the last to stand up when the officiating priest read the riot act about the behaviour of politicians, and was duly given a standing ovation - and how often does that happen during a funeral?
I think she feels no shame because she never feels she has done anything shameful. None so blind...
It can, it can - but the point is that she’s giving tRump a state occasion and has made no attempt to address the climate protests head on.