[Politics] The Labour Government

Professor Plum said:

From the Guardian/Observer today:​

Honeymoon over: Keir Starmer now less popular than Rishi Sunak​

Opinium poll for the Observer finds a 45-point drop in the prime minister’s approval rating since he won the election

Keir Starmer has suffered a precipitous fall in his personal ratings since winning the election, according to a new poll for the Observer that comes before his first Labour conference as prime minister.
The latest Opinium poll reveals that Starmer’s approval rating has plunged below that of the Tory leader Rishi Sunak, suffering a huge 45-point drop since July. While 24% of voters approve of the job he is doing, 50% disapprove, giving him a net rating of -26%. Sunak’s net rating is one point better.

The prime minister is not alone in suffering from a major drop in personal support since the election. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, who has cut winter fuel payments for all but the poorest pensioners and promised tough decisions on welfare and tax in the forthcoming budget, has seen a 36-point drop in her net approval since July.

Click to expand...

Zeberdi said:

Er, hardly being loyal to anyone. That is not my MO - I have criticised a number of Labour Government policies on the boards in recent months. I course I believe what I post - I am not in the habit of posting lies so “admit” nothing but thanks for the really patronising attitude.

You seem to not have a clue what point I was making (now about 4 pages back!) - if you knew, you would realise the research backed up what I have been saying.

Please point me to a single post on this thread where I have said this is a good idea or unequivocally supported the Government for implementing it or said that it won’t cause severe hardship or even the possibility of causative mortality.

Where have I said anywhere that cold homes does not cause excess mortality? All I have said in response to your distastefully hyperbolic proposition that ‘1,000s WILL die‘ is that we cannot predict the number with any certainty, because it is a future event contingent on a number of sequential factors. - My criticism of your statement has been taken completely out of context and re-interpreted as me supporting Starmer and blown up into an almighty and ridiculous side discussion ! @Bozza’s links to the Labour research backs my point up. No where in that research did the authors predict with certainty what the mortality rate would be - they said “could” and “possibly ”

I can’t believe your English is not good enough to know the difference between measured, scientific reports and partisan hyperbole.

AGAIN

My position is this and remains unchanged:

Removing the WFA from pensioners except those on means-tested benefits (ie those who do not qualify for pension credit) is going to result in financial hardship for millions of pensioners and could possibly cause additional mortality for those on very low incomes who may not use their heating as a consequence - that is a no brainer - however, is not right to continue to give public handouts to those that do not need it but the threshold for determining that need is set too low.

I have (repeatedly) posted alternative suggestions too that in my view would be better, including using the windfall tax this winter to subsidise fuel bills for everyone. I have also several times posted links to a fund that those experiencing hardship in paying their fuel bills can apply for that is not means tested which I think is a constructive suggestion..

HtF is that different from what the majority of us on this thread are saying about the withdrawal of the WFA?

Why are you trying to position me in opposition to that by twisting my posts?

Click to expand...

Super Steve Earle said:

Bloody hell Zeberdi. Is posting enormous replies on NSC your day job or do you just not have anything to do since deposing Liz Truss and Labour are now in power?

Click to expand...

Chicken Run said:

I predict three things, he will publicly announce he’s putting you on ignore, followed by publicly stating that he’s putting this thread on ignore for the second time and you won’t get a response till later as he sleeps in most days till noon.

Click to expand...

Super Steve Earle said:

Bloody hell Zeberdi. Is posting enormous replies on NSC your day job or do you just not have anything to do since deposing Liz Truss and Labour are now in power?

Click to expand...

Super Steve Earle said:

Hope he doesn't overreact. I posted with a smile, not malice.

Zeberdi said:

I don’t work on Saturday evenings, I have a weekday job, and despite me managing my own hours, prefer not to go in at weekends thanks.

Trying to make political points by criticising the length of my posts when the posts I have been responding to have been posting equally if not more longer posts than I have in this discussion is a little passé and unimaginative dont you think?

This is your thread and several times you have tried to bully me off it because I do not share your anti-Labour politics - it may be your thread but it isn’t a private thread for you to pick and chose who posts according to your personal political preferences.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Super Steve Earle said:

You do take yourself incredibly seriously. It was a jokey comment. You have even replied directly under the comment where I said I posted with a smile, not malice. Having a laugh. A bit of fun.

Click to expand...

Super Steve Earle said:

Hope he doesn't overreact. I posted with a smile, not malice.

Click to expand...

The Clamp said:

£2000 for an afternoon at the football? Ordinary football fan?

Bollocks. He’s a grifter.

What planet are you living on?

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

If it is 2k for an afternoon at the football, then we're looking at about 60k a season and, given his salary is about 150k (before tax, etc), that amounts to more than half of his income.
I called him a genuine football fan not an ordinary one. There seem to be three options here:
1, he doesn't go to the football any more
2, he goes in his 2k a game box (if this is the accurate amount)
3, he pays his season ticket as he has done for decades and the taxpayer stumps up for security
I suspect that you and most will go for option 1. I don't. I think that politicians ought to be able to relax -- something that you seem to think is otherworldly.

Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:

If it is 2k for an afternoon at the football, then we're looking at about 60k a season and, given his salary is about 150k (before tax, etc), that amounts to more than half of his income.
.

Click to expand...

Zeberdi said:

Personally, I just don’t see the point of getting all morally outraged on a football forum when it’s not going to make a blind bit of difference

Click to expand...

Frutos said:

I can't come up…

Click to expand...

Frutos said:

Wow...just...wow.

I can't come up with anything more than that to respond to such a staggering lack of self-awareness.

Click to expand...

Zeberdi said:

Took my comment completely out of context.

I was responding to the implication that I agreed with the removal of the WFA from those that needed it because I question the need or usefulness of overly hyperbolic language in resolving conflicting political opinion.

I have limited energy - the full sentence which you edited out was that I would rather spend the little emotional energy I have in effecting change in real life. For me that means campaigning for change, lodging protests etc

It is entirely possible for me (anyone tbh) to state a political point of view, be critical of, even be in complete antithesis to something without ranting and raging and posting highly emotive comments in response.

I am autistic - just because I am not posting pages of emotive rants about something, doesn’t mean I don’t care or agree with it - I respond perhaps in a more measured and less ‘outraged’ way than the average bear.

(edit - I would also add based on years of political activism for NGOs, various political parties etc - I have found in my own experience, it has been far more constructive to use reason and rational argument than trying to shout or personally attack people with emotional tirades for their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Frutos said:

Not out of context at all - I've been on NSC for over 18 years and you are the most easily and frequently morally outraged person on here that I've ever encountered.

Click to expand...