Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda still hasn't got off the ground (or at least a place with illegal immigrants on it ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead "The Rwanda scheme didn't fail. It achieved it's purpose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda still hasn't got off the ground (or at least a place with illegal immigrants on it ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead
The Rwanda scheme didn't fail. It achieved it's purpose.
"i thought its purpose was to put transfer immigrants to rwanda,and how has it been acheived? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda still hasn't got off the ground (or at least a place with illegal immigrants on it ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead
The Rwanda scheme didn't fail. It achieved it's purpose.
i thought its purpose was to put transfer immigrants to rwanda,and how has it been acheived?"What? The purpose was to rile up support from people who hate foreigners so much they want immigrants to be trafficked to Rwanda. Achieved.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me, what is worse, the labour party flip flopping on potential policies or Tory failed pledges? And why?" I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda still hasn't got off the ground (or at least a place with illegal immigrants on it ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead
The Rwanda scheme didn't fail. It achieved it's purpose.
i thought its purpose was to put transfer immigrants to rwanda,and how has it been acheived?
What?
The purpose was to rile up support from people who hate foreigners so much they want immigrants to be trafficked to Rwanda.
Achieved. "Most people that want to lower immigration don't "hate" foreigners, just like Most left wingers don't hate Jews.. stop throwing around tropes. There is nothing wrong with some holding an opinion about lowering immigration. Just as there is nothing wrong with you holding the view we should have completely open boarders. Which ever of those view points is right or wrong or how they should be achieved is up for debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me, what is worse, the labour party flip flopping on potential policies or Tory failed pledges? And why? I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing." Exactly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me, what is worse, the labour party flip flopping on potential policies or Tory failed pledges? And why?" Does not seem to have caused Labour any harm judging by last night's bi elections. On the whole I guess the main problem could be trust if it becomes a trend as when they publish their manifesto some may not believe those are things that they really will implement, given how they kept changing in the past. SKS will be PM soon, regardless of flip flopping so we will have to see if he sticks to his word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing." I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me, what is worse, the labour party flip flopping on potential policies or Tory failed pledges? And why?" Failed pledges are worst. . Flip-flopping is meaningless at the end of the day. We all flip-flop as part of daily routine and as part of daily life. . New information comes to light or circumstances change that render our decision unwise or position untenable. . So we change our minds. . It's called "course adjustment" and one of the reasons humans are so successful as a species. We can adapt to changing situations and chart new ways forward. . Failure however, is exactly that. Failure. . So no, I don't see flip-flopping as a negative thing. Quite the reverse in fact. It's a major strength. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Rwanda still hasn't got off the ground (or at least a place with illegal immigrants on it ), and growth of the economy, errrrm recession time...
Are these worse than Labour admitting they won't have the 28 billion to put into green ventures?
Just think, if the economy had grown, the labour promise may have been able to go ahead
The Rwanda scheme didn't fail. It achieved it's purpose.
i thought its purpose was to put transfer immigrants to rwanda,and how has it been acheived?
What?
The purpose was to rile up support from people who hate foreigners so much they want immigrants to be trafficked to Rwanda.
Achieved.
Most people that want to lower immigration don't "hate" foreigners, just like Most left wingers don't hate Jews.. stop throwing around tropes.
"The Rwanda scheme has absolutely nothing to do with lowering immigration. So no tropes were thrown around. It had a very specific purpose, which it achieved. " There is nothing wrong with some holding an opinion about lowering immigration. Just as there is nothing wrong with you holding the view we should have completely open boarders. Which ever of those view points is right or wrong or how they should be achieved is up for debate. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. And you should know that "global warming" is an inaccurate and outdated term. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" nothing much has changed in the world of global warming except its effects are showing more and more .what has changed is since starmer made the £28 bilion pledge the Torys under truss have crashed the economy to the tune of £45 billion and sunacered has failed to grow the econamy since meaning the money just isnt there anymore | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" Labour are not in Government and they do not have any power to control tax and spending. They, like everyone else, have become increasingly aware of the dire state of Government finances and have therefore quite correctly shelved a major spending pledge until such time as they have their hands on the levers of power and can control tax and spending themselves. I really don’t understand the big deal about this. I was planning to change my car this year but I decided to hang on to it for another year as the interest rate on new car finance is much higher now than on the car I bought three years ago. I shelved the idea until circumstances change for the better. We all do stuff like this all of the time - it’s normal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing." "I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" "The current government spunked away all the money, was the change." If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics." The first half resonates with me. But the concept of adjusting your policies as information changes or as the situation changes, seems sensible to me. It's better than rigidly sticking to an idea which has long since become obsolete or impractical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics." So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. " Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 . Such cynical moves obviously get the new government hamstrung, making it potentially impossible to fulfil earlier strategies. The devil is in the details.
We shouldn't have viewed the strategy as much more than intent, with the caveats of it being subject to the current government being in charge and thus able to deliver damage that could thwart plans, deliberately or accidentally.
I think you have to hold a government to greater levels of account, due to their holding of full power. And opposition parties should be held to account the most, for manifesto pledges immediately prior to elections.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway." I don't think he could do anything that would scupper his chances of being the next PM. However, I can see his flip flopping, costing him a full second term as PM. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway. I don't think he could do anything that would scupper his chances of being the next PM. However, I can see his flip flopping, costing him a full second term as PM." If he should become PM. Will he "flip flops" more than any previous? The media hypes up this as if it's never been done before. And it works. The chap above is always quoting this and the "didn't answer a question about a woman once" as why he is so strongly opposed to a Labour government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. The first half resonates with me. But the concept of adjusting your policies as information changes or as the situation changes, seems sensible to me. It's better than rigidly sticking to an idea which has long since become obsolete or impractical." Rwanda? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. The first half resonates with me. But the concept of adjusting your policies as information changes or as the situation changes, seems sensible to me. It's better than rigidly sticking to an idea which has long since become obsolete or impractical.Rwanda? " That's achieved it's aims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway. I don't think he could do anything that would scupper his chances of being the next PM. However, I can see his flip flopping, costing him a full second term as PM. If he should become PM. Will he "flip flops" more than any previous? The media hypes up this as if it's never been done before. And it works. The chap above is always quoting this and the "didn't answer a question about a woman once" as why he is so strongly opposed to a Labour government." It is not just the electorate that cares about him flip flopping, if he is seen as indecisive, there will be labour knife in his back rather quickly. He is the right person to lead them to power, not sure if he will stay the distance unless he becomes more thorough in his policies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway. I don't think he could do anything that would scupper his chances of being the next PM. However, I can see his flip flopping, costing him a full second term as PM. If he should become PM. Will he "flip flops" more than any previous? The media hypes up this as if it's never been done before. And it works. The chap above is always quoting this and the "didn't answer a question about a woman once" as why he is so strongly opposed to a Labour government. It is not just the electorate that cares about him flip flopping, if he is seen as indecisive, there will be labour knife in his back rather quickly. He is the right person to lead them to power, not sure if he will stay the distance unless he becomes more thorough in his policies. " If Labour get in. He'll be allowed to stay in power as long as he prioritises the needs of those with the £££. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour look likely but not certain to win the election but I don't want to win, in fact I'm hoping they get hammered just like the Tories" Which party would you like to see in power? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The announcement to cut the green investment in half was poor, it has been a flagship delivery for a length of time and with it coming with caveats it made people question if it was ever going to be delivered. Actually, it's smart. He has moved the goalposts at a time when conservative support is low and long enough before an election that it will be minor news. He will no longer have as unreasonable a promise hanging over him should he be elected. In short, he doesn't need the policy to win, and he can always over-deliver should he choose. It also paints him as pragmatic and honest and the only people he really cares about are those on the fence between Conservative and Labour. The people who are concerned about him flip-flopping probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Those who are aghast at this anti-green policy won't vote Conservative anyway. I don't think he could do anything that would scupper his chances of being the next PM. However, I can see his flip flopping, costing him a full second term as PM. If he should become PM. Will he "flip flops" more than any previous? The media hypes up this as if it's never been done before. And it works. The chap above is always quoting this and the "didn't answer a question about a woman once" as why he is so strongly opposed to a Labour government. It is not just the electorate that cares about him flip flopping, if he is seen as indecisive, there will be labour knife in his back rather quickly. He is the right person to lead them to power, not sure if he will stay the distance unless he becomes more thorough in his policies. If Labour get in. He'll be allowed to stay in power as long as he prioritises the needs of those with the £££. " He needs to show he can build a policy, commit to it and deliver. If he doesn't show he can do that early on he will be out | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" Just a few days before announcing the flip flop SKS was still publicly using the 28 billion figure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" Recession? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me, what is worse, the labour party flip flopping on potential policies or Tory failed pledges? And why? Failed pledges are worst. . Flip-flopping is meaningless at the end of the day. We all flip-flop as part of daily routine and as part of daily life. . New information comes to light or circumstances change that render our decision unwise or position untenable. . So we change our minds. . It's called "course adjustment" and one of the reasons humans are so successful as a species. We can adapt to changing situations and chart new ways forward. . Failure however, is exactly that. Failure. . So no, I don't see flip-flopping as a negative thing. Quite the reverse in fact. It's a major strength. " Agreed. Hence being pissed off with Sunak's mockery of SKS. The pot calling the kettle black... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour look likely but not certain to win the election but I don't want to win, in fact I'm hoping they get hammered just like the Tories Which party would you like to see in power?" Reform Party | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? Labour are not in Government and they do not have any power to control tax and spending. They, like everyone else, have become increasingly aware of the dire state of Government finances and have therefore quite correctly shelved a major spending pledge until such time as they have their hands on the levers of power and can control tax and spending themselves. I really don’t understand the big deal about this. I was planning to change my car this year but I decided to hang on to it for another year as the interest rate on new car finance is much higher now than on the car I bought three years ago. I shelved the idea until circumstances change for the better. We all do stuff like this all of the time - it’s normal." Not if you're a Tory, it's look at them doing u-turns. Trying to deflect their much worse stuff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control." Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. The first half resonates with me. But the concept of adjusting your policies as information changes or as the situation changes, seems sensible to me. It's better than rigidly sticking to an idea which has long since become obsolete or impractical.Rwanda? " Just make a law...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection." Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it." A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years? "Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?"No, I want genuine and radical change, which we’re unlikely to get - but regardless, Labour replacing the Tories will be an improvement for Joe Average, I’m sure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?
No, I want genuine and radical change, which we’re unlikely to get - but regardless, Labour replacing the Tories will be an improvement for Joe Average, I’m sure. "I too want a change and I think it's time for the only plausible alternative to have a go HOWEVER if they make an arse of it I'm happy to criticise them and seek their replacement by the only plausible alternative...are you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?"How do you know it will be more of the same? The last Labour Government were very different to the previous Conservative Government, and we all benefitted because of that. Rough sleeping was all but eradicated, NHS waiting lists came right down, GDP per capita was at its highest ever on record investment in education and the NHS was higher than the previous Government. Why do you assume that it will be more of the same? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?
No, I want genuine and radical change, which we’re unlikely to get - but regardless, Labour replacing the Tories will be an improvement for Joe Average, I’m sure.
I too want a change and I think it's time for the only plausible alternative to have a go HOWEVER if they make an arse of it I'm happy to criticise them and seek their replacement by the only plausible alternative...are you?"I will criticise any mistakes that I feel they make, yes. Will I be clamouring to replace them with the Tories? It’s hard to imagine circumstances where I’d ever feel the conservatives would be a suitable replacement for Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it." No he doesn’t. He gets attacked by people who would never vote for him anyway. It’s just finger pointing by right wing ideologists who want to maintain the status quo of massive wealth keeping mere plebs under the cosh whilst simultaneously employing plebs as UI’s to spread the word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour look likely but not certain to win the election but I don't want to win, in fact I'm hoping they get hammered just like the Tories Which party would you like to see in power? Reform Party" You have to be joking right? You are honestly taken by Reform Ltd and its two multi-Millionnaire shareholders (and Isabelle Oakshott) that they have the best interest of ordinary people at heart? I am speechless. I can imagine cheek-sucking 70 year olds who hate foreigners and brown skinned people voting for reform - but that is about it. What on earth would make you think that those people have your best interest at heart? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour look likely but not certain to win the election but I don't want to win, in fact I'm hoping they get hammered just like the Tories Which party would you like to see in power? Reform Party" For racist teachers, pretending science isn't real, and even more blaming foreigners for everything? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?
No, I want genuine and radical change, which we’re unlikely to get - but regardless, Labour replacing the Tories will be an improvement for Joe Average, I’m sure.
I too want a change and I think it's time for the only plausible alternative to have a go HOWEVER if they make an arse of it I'm happy to criticise them and seek their replacement by the only plausible alternative...are you?"Really? So when the Blair govt needed replacing you would've or did blindly vote for it? If not, who? Tories? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?
No, I want genuine and radical change, which we’re unlikely to get - but regardless, Labour replacing the Tories will be an improvement for Joe Average, I’m sure. "If you don't want more of the same demand better and stop making excuses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? The current government spunked away all the money, was the change. If that's their thinking, it's a good reason to change the policy. But it does rather highlight the fact that they announced a flagship policy with no idea whether it could be funded or not. It will also make their eco-friendly supporters question whether Labour really is an environmentally conscious party, or whether it will just drop all of that if it gets too expensive. That's why this particular 'flip-flop' will keep getting mentioned, because it casts doubt about their abilities in the minds of listeners. And it becomes especially relevant when SKS keeps talking about bringing stability to politics. So when political commentators and the entire social media keeps banging on that "labour doesn't have a plan," what exactly are they supposed to do? The only plan that anyone should really be challenged on is the one that ends up in their manifesto. It's plain stupid to call someone out for not having a plan and then calling them out again when they do have a plan but have to revise it because of economic circumstances that they can't control. Doesn't stop the Tories. Classic deflection. Policy making is not at all the same as deciding whether to buy a car or not? It is a future change that will impact everyone, it needs the requirements to be well defined and measured to enable them. This is why flip flopping looks bad, it appears the basics were not in hand, which then brings into question everything, and why Starmer keeps getting big chunks tore off him every time he does it. A big policy change where the requirements were not well defined? Well where to start in the past 14 years?
Do you want more of the same, just as long as it is not Tory?
How do you know it will be more of the same?
The last Labour Government were very different to the previous Conservative Government, and we all benefitted because of that. Rough sleeping was all but eradicated, NHS waiting lists came right down, GDP per capita was at its highest ever on record investment in education and the NHS was higher than the previous Government.
Why do you assume that it will be more of the same?"The topic is flip flopping, and Starmer keeps doing it, you either accept a leader that can't provide solid direction or you demand your leader to provide clear direction. It doesn't matter what labour once did, it is what they do next. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" His masters in Tel-Aviv needs it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed?" "His masters in Tel-Aviv needs it" I'm dreading the answer but, how does Israel benefit from the UK's Labour party cancelling a commitment to spend money on green initiatives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? His masters in Tel-Aviv needs it" Please explain further? Because that’s a reasonably wild claim to make. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've never understood why it's so terrible for politicians to change their minds. Things change. But it's held up as such a taboo thing. I agree with you that changing your mind when the situation changes is a sensible path to take. But 2 months ago SKS was trumpeting the £28bn that Labour would be spending on green initiatives, then last week he dropped the idea. What has changed in the global warming world that means this investment is no longer needed? His masters in Tel-Aviv needs it Please explain further? Because that’s a reasonably wild claim to make." It's a slight improvement on savile and Epstein | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
