Jump to content

UK Politics - BoJo Kool-Aid vs Project Fear Cocktail of Terror


A wilding

Recommended Posts

Tokens have value, anyway. Sending a message to the population by reintroducing mask wearing is a helpful indication that this is a threat, and the visual cue of a mask (should) remind people to do other stuff they need to do, like distance and sanitise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 9:42 AM, Spockydog said:

Would love to put this story to bed, but the poor little emasculated snowflake cretin has actually sent his wife out to defend him in the media.

Unbelievable.

 

“He’s worried Top Gear might be next”

OMG this is fabulous!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Another U-turn likely from UK government on care costs bill

Quote

 

The government is preparing to drop controversial plans that would force poorer pensioners to pay more for their social care, in order to avert a possible Commons defeat that would further damage Boris Johnson’s authority, the Observer has been told.

Senior figures and officials in the House of Lords are understood to have been reassured by the health minister Lord Kamall that the legislation will not return to the Lords in its current form after its committee stage early next year.

One former government minister also said he had been told by a senior official in the NHS hierarchy that the plans would be returned to something more like the original proposals made several years ago by the economist Andrew Dilnot.

In the Commons on Monday night, the government narrowly won a vote to change its social care plans in England in a way that would hit poorer people, because means-tested contributions from councils to their care costs would not count towards a new £86,000 cap on payments for each individual. Although the government won, 19 Tory MPs voted against it and 68 abstained or had leave of absence. Many Tory MPs in red wall seats were outraged that Johnson appeared to be reneging on his promise that no one would be forced to sell their home to pay the costs of care.

It is understood that senior figures in the Department of Health and Social Care have described the plans as a “dog’s dinner”, and expressed fear that, without changes, the government could even be defeated at later stages of the legislation.

 

What a bunch of useless, u-turning twats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather see the U-turns on bad policies than not see them. Of course it would be better yet if the government actually thought things through before forcing them through the Commons. Listening is supposed to be done while policy is being formed, not after it's been voted on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

I'd rather see the U-turns on bad policies than not see them. Of course it would be better yet if the government actually thought things through before forcing them through the Commons. Listening is supposed to be done while policy is being formed, not after it's been voted on.

Yeah, agree with all of this. Though, u-turns are funny. Especially when they come after a host of Tory cretins have been sent out before the media to defend their shitty policies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how anyone, regardless of ideology can imagine a policy that would see even economically middle-class people have to sell their only asset (for many of them) to pay for health care would withstand public scrutiny. Its the kind of law change that could only happen entirely behind closed doors and be a fait accompli by the time anyone in the public new about it, and that kind of law change process can only really when there is only one ruling party, no opposition and no parliament.

I do believe however that this govt has announced u-turns only as PR exercises and pushed ahead anyway when the attention of the public and media turned elsewhere. But I guess those were just around policies that the govt could implement without legislation. Trying to stealth pass a law that you've publicly u-turned on it a bit trickier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I just don't understand how anyone, regardless of ideology can imagine a policy that would see even economically middle-class people have to sell their only asset (for many of them) to pay for health care would withstand public scrutiny. Its the kind of law change that could only happen entirely behind closed doors and be a fait accompli by the time anyone in the public new about it, and that kind of law change process can only really when there is only one ruling party, no opposition and no parliament.

I do believe however that this govt has announced u-turns only as PR exercises and pushed ahead anyway when the attention of the public and media turned elsewhere. But I guess those were just around policies that the govt could implement without legislation. Trying to stealth pass a law that you've publicly u-turned on it a bit trickier.

Yep. The onlyhope for lany gen u/z to own a home is either to inherit it or the money from selling an inherited property. This law kills that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

Middle class people do have to sell their only asset for very expensive health care in the United States. Welcome to Private care and horrible, very expensive private insurance.

Yes, being able to see a real life example of it makes it an even harder policy to get past public scrutiny in countries where a decent public health system already exists, even a half decent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 'private, for profit 'health care and insurance' is even worse for all of us who need medical procedures ever since covid, and can't get them because all the covid patients have all the resources.  And now here we are again, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL THE COVID PATIENTS ARE UNVACCINATED AND WON'T WEAR MASKS.

Just like the jerkwaddie in Trader Joe's today (a supermarket) ignoring the no-dogs rule of our city (law) and -- of course, wasn't wearing mask either.  Also when the governor of the state, due to omicron, has now "extremely strongly suggested all NYers wear masks within ALL public spaces."  Naturally those who refuse to obey laws of one kind won't obey any suggestion such wearing a mask, and refuse vaccination.  People who behave like this in one situation behave like that in all of them.  feh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/rnli-lifeboat-crew-blocked-from-going-out-to-sea-by-people-angry-at-them-rescuing-refugees-303026

Quote

RNLI lifeboat crew ‘blocked from going out to sea’ by people angry at them rescuing refugees

A group blocked the boat while shouting "don't bring any more of those home, we're full up" and other "horrible stuff".
RNLI lifeboat crew members were subjected to “horrible” abuse and saw their boat blocked by a group of angry people – just days after 27 migrants perished at sea.
...

Is it possible to charge people with intent to manslaughter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Without knowing all the details you could look at false imprisonment, which has a maximum life sentence. Stopping people saving lives should allow for a decent sentence if convicted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably it'd be hard to make a false imprisonment charge stick - they're being prevented from going to one place, but seem to have complete freedom to go for a walk, or go home, or wherever else.

 

Adding stories like this to stories of ambulances being blocked in / vandalised for having the temerity to block someone's driveway - I think we may need something along the lines of an intent to manslaughter.

Isn't there already a charge for things like knowingly spreading HIV? maybe that one could be adapted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

 

 

Adding stories like this to stories of ambulances being blocked in / vandalised for having the temerity to block someone's driveway - I think we may need something along the lines of an intent to manslaughter.

Isn't there already a charge for things like knowingly spreading HIV? maybe that one could be adapted?

It's very frustrating that corporations can be held accountable for H&S breaches but private individuals aren't. 

Deliberately blocking in an ambulance should carry a serious penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I just don't understand how anyone, regardless of ideology can imagine a policy that would see even economically middle-class people have to sell their only asset (for many of them) to pay for health care would withstand public scrutiny. Its the kind of law change that could only happen entirely behind closed doors and be a fait accompli by the time anyone in the public new about it, and that kind of law change process can only really when there is only one ruling party, no opposition and no parliament.

The situation at the moment is that middle class people already may have to sell their houses to pay for their care in old age. This new law purports to solve that problem, but in practice the extra tax being raised is insufficient to do so, hence the wriggling.

As to the wider question.

Improvements in health care mean that people are now on average living much longer. But at the same time in the last few years of their lives they often need a large amount of very expensive care. So the question is, who should pay for that care?

In the UK, the baby boomer generation currently in retirement are statistically richer then younger generations will ever be. The vast majority of them were able to buy their own houses when many younger people will never be able to. They got free university education. They enjoyed to the full the benefits of an excellent welfare state that has now been drastically cut back and is extremely likely to be further whittled away.

So is it fair to further tax the already overburdened younger generation so that their parents can pass on their wealth to their children largely untouched? An argument can certainly be made that it is not.

Personally I think old age care should be paid for by a big increase in inheritance tax, and if that means parents cannot pass their house down to their children so be it, inherited wealth is regressive anyway. This removes the lottery of whether you suddenly drop dead one day or burn through half a million spending your last n years in a care home. It also removes any fear of running out of money.

And full disclosure, I do stand to inherit a bit from my parents, and am willing for a chunk of that to be used to solve this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, A wilding said:

The situation at the moment is that middle class people already may have to sell their houses to pay for their care in old age. This new law purports to solve that problem, but in practice the extra tax being raised is insufficient to do so, hence the wriggling.

As to the wider question.

Improvements in health care mean that people are now on average living much longer. But at the same time in the last few years of their lives they often need a large amount of very expensive care. So the question is, who should pay for that care?

In the UK, the baby boomer generation currently in retirement are statistically richer then younger generations will ever be. The vast majority of them were able to buy their own houses when many younger people will never be able to. They got free university education. They enjoyed to the full the benefits of an excellent welfare state that has now been drastically cut back and is extremely likely to be further whittled away.

So is it fair to further tax the already overburdened younger generation so that their parents can pass on their wealth to their children largely untouched? An argument can certainly be made that it is not.

Personally I think old age care should be paid for by a big increase in inheritance tax, and if that means parents cannot pass their house down to their children so be it, inherited wealth is regressive anyway. This removes the lottery of whether you suddenly drop dead one day or burn through half a million spending your last n years in a care home. It also removes any fear of running out of money.

And full disclosure, I do stand to inherit a bit from my parents, and am willing for a chunk of that to be used to solve this problem.

Inheritance tax should be utilised to pay for all sorts of shit. I won't inherit much from my parents but we would from my wife's.  I also expect to be in a position where my kids would lose out if inheritance tax is hugely increased and I'm fine with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite amusing that the right keep telling people they should pull themselves up by the boot straps and not lean on others for help. But try to implement an inheritance tax and all of a sudden the fruits of anothers work is theirs by right and must not be touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I find it quite amusing that the right keep telling people they should pull themselves up by the boot straps and not lean on others for help. But try to implement an inheritance tax and all of a sudden the fruits of anothers work is theirs by right and must not be touched.

I think the response would be they mostly don’t have a problem with the idea of people giving their property  out of love, or a sense of duty, legacy, freely. 
 they just don’t think there need be an expectation for it from the state or your family.

I don’t see a contradiction here necessarily.  Anymore then there’s a contradiction with conservatives on average donating to charity more than liberals, but still tending to vote for lower tax measures.

Also unrealated to this post but related to that other thing that was talked about; found this

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/sheffield-mp-miriam-cates-defends-doncaster-mp-nick-fletcher-over-doctor-who-and-star-wars-role-models-3475277

The MP is a bit more honest.

She still gives the same token proclamation course thinking it’s good to challenge gender-stereotypes. I would bet my life she doesn’t actually disagree with most of the stereotypes just on how they’re framed or discussed. 

Quote

When the traditional virtues of masculinity and male identity are portrayed as redundant or negative or not uniquely male, what is there left for young men to aspire to?”


How could boy be hero if he sees girl be dr.who(you know the transforming alien).

They’d just have to subsist on the vast majority of action shows and movies having a manly man doing manly things. 

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Far right nationalists are cowards who prey on the weak. It’d be injustice for any of these cretins to not get sent to prison.

Though I suspect they won’t from my knowledge of how groups like this are treated;

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/identitarians-get-a-boat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...