Funny, can't see any of May's gaffes mentioned here on the BBC, Abbott is still on the front page of the politics section though. Bloody left-wing media...
Regardless of May or the BBC, all Abbott had to do was know what the costs of employing 10000 more police would be and where it was gonna come from (Clamp down on corporation tax dodgers no doubt). On a day when she was having "6 interviews" leading up to a general erection, I'd have though the perspective Home Secretary would have these fundamental figures ready to throw out at the drop of a hat, I don't even think she forgot, she didn't seem to knew them in the first place.
Strikes me as lazy
Didn't she get them right in the other 5 though?
What about May failing to prepare for her Brexit meeting with the EU leaders that left them utterly flabbergasted as to how little she knew of the coming procress? Is that not just laziness but dangerous incompetence?
What number interview was the cock up in?
For the record again - I'm not a fan of May, there is no party or person in Politics who I'd say I was a fan of. As I see it, I think you'll be voting for the best of 3 evils come the erection.
Funny, can't see any of May's gaffes mentioned here on the BBC, Abbott is still on the front page of the politics section though. Bloody left-wing media...
Regardless of May or the BBC, all Abbott had to do was know what the costs of employing 10000 more police would be and where it was gonna come from (Clamp down on corporation tax dodgers no doubt). On a day when she was having "6 interviews" leading up to a general erection, I'd have though the perspective Home Secretary would have these fundamental figures ready to throw out at the drop of a hat, I don't even think she forgot, she didn't seem to knew them in the first place.
Strikes me as lazy
It's utterly bizarre and has been a massive own goal by Labour. Silly mistake.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
....and repeats the whole question she has just been asked very slowly to kill a bit of time.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
Media training but it doesn't mean if you have the training the person sounds anymore convincing or intelligent.
Cameron and Blair were very good at this and therefore you could open up their audience. Major and Corbyn come across as authentic and decent so got away with more. Farage managed to combine the two.
May & Brown not so good,hence not putting May into 'difficult' situations. Brown was braver, perhaps to brave.
I think most of us would just like politicians to speak with a bit of heart, knowledge and conviction.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
I would suggest her speech is an inherent trait, not a deliberate effect (I don't think she's that clever).
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
I would suggest her speech is an inherent trait, not a deliberate effect (I don't think she's that clever).
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
And yet folk are still happy to vote her and her ex boyfriend in to run the Country, shamazing
Don't get me wrong, Abbott is a clown who deserves to be ridiculed every day that she holds elected office, but the fact is Abbott is unlikely to hold any meaningful power in the near future, whereas May is likely to be the one deciding the fate of the entire country. I know who I'd rather the media apply even the smallest bit of scrutiny to.
Nail on head. All tory supporters should have this tattooed on the back of their hand.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
I would suggest her speech is an inherent trait, not a deliberate effect (I don't think she's that clever).
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
And yet folk are still happy to vote her and her ex boyfriend in to run the Country, shamazing
Politicians don't run the country - that's the job of the Civil Service.
Besides, her seat is pretty safe - I think pretty much anyone (animal, vegetable or mineral) with a red rossette would get elected.
The full result for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is:
If Abbott hadn't made that stupid, amateurish gaffe in her nth radio interview yesterday morning, how many voters would know that Labour intends to recruit 10,000 more police?
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
Arguably this is the most important election in my lifetime and yet the choice in a national sense is between people who are pretty second rate. In terms of party leaders the only ones with any gravitas are the Greens and the bloody Nationalists. In my eyes the Nationalists are an ideology I disagree with, and I have doubts about the experience of the Greens although in terms of their ideology they appeal, the first past the post system is a frustration here. However where are the people of any stature these days?
As an aside, I may be going out on a limb here, but I find it quite amusing to hear (generally on the Any Answers phone-in, because I like Anita Anand) people complain at the Scottish Nationalist Party wanting to continue campaigning for Scottish independence despite losing the 2014 referendum - as if the SNP was only vaguely interested in an independent Scotland.
And then, quite often, the same people complain about politicians not standing up for what they believe in.
Colum Eastwood of the SDLP suggested an anti-hard Brexit electoral pact in Northern Ireland, but Naomi Long of Alliance said no, because she feared it would just be deemed Irish Nationalist. But I actually think that such a pact could work and could garner anti-Brexit Unionist votes if Sinn Fein was to announce that they would stand aside, for this election only, to ensure non-abstentionist anti-Brexit MPs were returned to Westminster (which would cause HMG more problems, with additional votes against the kind of Brexit that seems increasingly likely under this PM). Not that that would happen, because it would require Sinn Fein to look beyond their own noses...
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
I would suggest her speech is an inherent trait, not a deliberate effect (I don't think she's that clever).
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
And yet folk are still happy to vote her and her ex boyfriend in to run the Country, shamazing
I agree with you 100% re Abbott, but I will still almost certainly vote Labour, or more specifically Clive Efford, because he's a very good constituency MP, pro-Remain and pro reform of football. What other choice have I got, I don't want the Tories to capture the seat but the Lib Dems are very weak there. Since I believe the polls are broadly right, I expect Corbyn and Abbott to be swept away by moderate centre-left people in the Labour clean-up which follows.
BTW I didn't hear the car-crash interview, but I heard an earlier one on the Today programme, and she wasn't good there on the figures either. Normally if somebody messes one up they usually improve in subsequent ones, but she apparently got worse. I therefore think you are right, fundamentally she is lazy. As a constituency MP I guess she has her strengths but she simply isn't competent enough to be a shadow minister of anything and I can't find any reason to defend Labour over the noise around this. She shouldn't be in the team, to borrow @Bournemouth Addick ;'s Thuram analogy.
Don't get me wrong, Abbott is a clown who deserves to be ridiculed every day that she holds elected office, but the fact is Abbott is unlikely to hold any meaningful power in the near future, whereas May is likely to be the one deciding the fate of the entire country. I know who I'd rather the media apply even the smallest bit of scrutiny to.
Nail on head. All tory supporters should have this tattooed on the back of their hand.
Abbot thinks that because she slows down her speech and draws out the last word of every sentence she utters, people actually think she knows what she's talking about.
I would suggest her speech is an inherent trait, not a deliberate effect (I don't think she's that clever).
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
And yet folk are still happy to vote her and her ex boyfriend in to run the Country, shamazing
I agree with you 100% re Abbott, but I will still almost certainly vote Labour, or more specifically Clive Efford, because he's a very good constituency MP, pro-Remain and pro reform of football. What other choice have I got, I don't want the Tories to capture the seat but the Lib Dems are very weak there. Since I believe the polls are broadly right, I expect Corbyn and Abbott to be swept away by moderate centre-left people in the Labour clean-up which follows.
BTW I didn't hear the car-crash interview, but I heard an earlier one on the Today programme, and she wasn't good there on the figures either. Normally if somebody messes one up they usually improve in subsequent ones, but she apparently got worse. I therefore think you are right, fundamentally she is lazy. As a constituency MP I guess she has her strengths but she simply isn't competent enough to be a shadow minister of anything and I can't find any reason to defend Labour over the noise around this. She shouldn't be in the team, to borrow @Bournemouth Addick ;'s Thuram analogy.
Agreed - but poor old Jezza doesn't have many MPs to choose from who want to serve in his shadow cabinet.
As a life long Labour man (yes I'm called a champagne socialist but my roots say otherwise) it saddens me greatly what he is doing to my party.
It's an absolute f**king piss-take how much election discourse can be dominated by pictures of candidates f**king eating food. Yes, a still photo taken of someone mid-bite can make them look a little undignified! Gold star for whoever first worked that one out!
Videos of failing hospitals and schools should be the memes we share - that, or shitty interviews, gaffes, eggings etc. Instead, we have this bizarre sort of manufactured lolz. It's moronic. Sorry. I'm all for humiliating our oppressors, but like this? This isn't even a thing.
Clearly a very emotive and sad situation. But it is without doubt true that any bereavement payments either under the old scheme or the new one are completely inadequate to assist in looking after a family in any meaningful way. I assume therefore that the remaining family members are also entitled to other (also probably inadequate) benefit payments like Universal Credit or whatever.
Anyway, setting that aside for a moment, here's some questions. Okay, they are awkward but relevant just the same.
One, did this individual think so very little about his wife that he decided it was sensible to raise a family before having adequate life insurance in place for both parents? Why would anyone do that? If he did have adequate life insurance in place for both partners, why would his family now need help from the State? Is it the State's role to provide for everyone no matter what? Should there be any limits at all on state spending on benefits? Do we think that people bear no personal responsibility for their own decisions at all?
Whatever way you are going to vote, if you've got a family, get some adequate insurance ffs, it'll probably be cheaper than your mobile contract.
Now, on to Éoin Clarke. He's a whole different story. He lives in Northern Ireland, so he's a member of a party he can't vote for as they don't contest elections there! It seems even some members of the Labours see him as a fruitloop.
I am going to ignore your deflection of quoting opinion pieces on Eoin Clarke, because the election is not about him. Except to remind anyone that you don't have to support one of the parties that is on your constituency's ballot paper. I didn't when I lived in Buckingham, where the main parties don't oppose the Speaker.
You've highlighted the fact that each policy a Government sees fit to enact has at least two stories. One, created by the Government and its supporters and at least one put forward by its opposition. And, this case is no different. You're suggesting that anyone selfish enough to avail themselves of a family life should do so only when they also pay for adequate life insurance to take care of their spouse and offspring if they die at an early age. Presumably to do otherwise is a demonstration of reckless abandon and should be punished.
The counter argument is, of course, more palatable: since the second world war, the state has stepped in when citizens are in need. In this case, a bereaved widow, entitled to a state benefit is threatened with a significant, disproportionate reduction in the size of that benefit, purely based on the misfortunate of the date her husband finally loses his battle against canccer.
My suggestion is that it's entirely wrong to make such a massive, punitive cut to the amount of money a widow raising children should be able to rely on. It's an insignificant benefit to the Treasury, but a potentially cataclysmic wrecking of a family's finances.
Make no mistake, this Government will go after almost anyone. They've gone after migrants, they've gone after Unions, they've even gone after doctors. And now we see they're even prepared to go after widows and berreaved children. Who's next?
It is amazing how the Prime Minister's general ineptness in this campaign (e.g. she thinks it is OK NHS workers survive on food banks, humiliation in Scotland, refusing to let people take her photo etc.) is barely being reported by the media.
Whilst Diane Abbott makes a fairly minor gaffe regarding paying for a policy and by teatime every news outlet, including the BBC, is trying to see who can have the biggest and most colourful 'DIANE ABBOTT IS A FAT IDIOT LET'S LAUGH AT HER' graphic at the top of their front page.
A minor gaffe?
None of the figures she said could be seen as adding up, the real costs of hiring and training 10,000 police in the timeframe of 4-5 years would be in excess of 500,000,000 not 300,000,000 when you account for employment benefits, equipment and training costs.
Regardless of May or the BBC, all Abbott had to do was know what the costs of employing 10000 more police would be and where it was gonna come from (Clamp down on corporation tax dodgers no doubt). On a day when she was having "6 interviews" leading up to a general erection, I'd have though the perspective Home Secretary would have these fundamental figures ready to throw out at the drop of a hat, I don't even think she forgot, she didn't seem to knew them in the first place.
Strikes me as lazy
Didn't she get them right in the other 5 though?
What about May failing to prepare for her Brexit meeting with the EU leaders that left them utterly flabbergasted as to how little she knew of the coming procress? Is that not just laziness but dangerous incompetence?
These are claims that have been "leaked" by a source. What did she actually say or misinterpreted? Or has she just rustled a few feathers? We are effectively in a divorce from the EU. Divorces are messy and things are said out of anger and frustration.
One, did this individual think so very little about his wife that he decided it was sensible to raise a family before having adequate life insurance in place for both parents? Why would anyone do that? If he did have adequate life insurance in place for both partners, why would his family now need help from the State? Is it the State's role to provide for everyone no matter what? Should there be any limits at all on state spending on benefits? Do we think that people bear no personal responsibility for their own decisions at all?
Whatever way you are going to vote, if you've got a family, get some adequate insurance ffs, it'll probably be cheaper than your mobile contract.
But this particular benefit was based on the National Insurance contributions of the deceased spouse - at least until the recent changes. And as previously mentioned on this thread, adequate life insurance is difficult to get if you have pre-existing conditions, and difficult to maintain during periods of unemployment or ill-health. That's why that national insurance system was set up in the first place.
Arguably this is the most important election in my lifetime and yet the choice in a national sense is between people who are pretty second rate. In terms of party leaders the only ones with any gravitas are the Greens and the bloody Nationalists. In my eyes the Nationalists are an ideology I disagree with, and I have doubts about the experience of the Greens although in terms of their ideology they appeal, the first past the post system is a frustration here. However where are the people of any stature these days?
Nail on head. But I'm afraid it's our own fault that (almost) all of our politicians are second (or worse) rate. It's because the great British electorate gets into a tizz any time anybody tries to have a sensible debate about pay and expenses for MPs.
No one apart from a very few altruistic individuals would consider politics as a sensible career path unless they were mad, hopeless or both. Anyone with half a brain would be doing something else. Something with a remuneration that recognises their worth and something that has a degree of job security perhaps? The only other alternative is to go back in time when politicians pay didn't matter because they all had a lordship and private means.
Now I've always thought the the House of Commons was chock-a-block full of ex-lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice. And that no Tory MPs had ever had a proper job. It seems I was wrong.
Only 14% of MPs are lawyers. Some remarkable differences emerge regarding other professions. 54% of Conservative MPs have worked in business or finance but only 18% of Labour MPs have. Whereas 25% of all MPs are nothing more than career politicians or union activists, that applies to 19% of Conservative MPs but 44% of the Labour ones. Other aspects are less surprising: the Labour benches include no one who has served in the armed services or worked in agriculture, whereas 9% of Conservative members have. Conversely, 15% of Labour MPs have done voluntary work but only 3% of Conservatives. One thing MPs from both the Labour and Conservative Parties appear to agree upon is that the health sector is one to stay away from with representation of only 4% from both parties.
Arguably this is the most important election in my lifetime and yet the choice in a national sense is between people who are pretty second rate. In terms of party leaders the only ones with any gravitas are the Greens and the bloody Nationalists. In my eyes the Nationalists are an ideology I disagree with, and I have doubts about the experience of the Greens although in terms of their ideology they appeal, the first past the post system is a frustration here. However where are the people of any stature these days?
Nail on head. But I'm afraid it's our own fault that (almost) all of our politicians are second (or worse) rate. It's because the great British electorate gets into a tizz any time anybody tries to have a sensible debate about pay and expenses for MPs.
No one apart from a very few altruistic individuals would consider politics as a sensible career path unless they were mad, hopeless or both. Anyone with half a brain would be doing something else. Something with a remuneration that recognises their worth and something that has a degree of job security perhaps? The only other alternative is to go back in time when politicians pay didn't matter because they all had a lordship and private means.
Now I've always thought the the House of Commons was chock-a-block full of ex-lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice. And that no Tory MPs had ever had a proper job. It seems I was wrong.
Only 14% of MPs are lawyers. Some remarkable differences emerge regarding other professions. 54% of Conservative MPs have worked in business or finance but only 18% of Labour MPs have. Whereas 25% of all MPs are nothing more than career politicians or union activists, that applies to 19% of Conservative MPs but 44% of the Labour ones. Other aspects are less surprising: the Labour benches include no one who has served in the armed services or worked in agriculture, whereas 9% of Conservative members have. Conversely, 15% of Labour MPs have done voluntary work but only 3% of Conservatives. One thing MPs from both the Labour and Conservative Parties appear to agree upon is that the health sector is one to stay away from with representation of only 4% from both parties.
Arguably this is the most important election in my lifetime and yet the choice in a national sense is between people who are pretty second rate. In terms of party leaders the only ones with any gravitas are the Greens and the bloody Nationalists. In my eyes the Nationalists are an ideology I disagree with, and I have doubts about the experience of the Greens although in terms of their ideology they appeal, the first past the post system is a frustration here. However where are the people of any stature these days?
Nail on head. But I'm afraid it's our own fault that (almost) all of our politicians are second (or worse) rate. It's because the great British electorate gets into a tizz any time anybody tries to have a sensible debate about pay and expenses for MPs.
No one apart from a very few altruistic individuals would consider politics as a sensible career path unless they were mad, hopeless or both. Anyone with half a brain would be doing something else. Something with a remuneration that recognises their worth and something that has a degree of job security perhaps? The only other alternative is to go back in time when politicians pay didn't matter because they all had a lordship and private means.
Now I've always thought the the House of Commons was chock-a-block full of ex-lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice. And that no Tory MPs had ever had a proper job. It seems I was wrong.
Only 14% of MPs are lawyers. Some remarkable differences emerge regarding other professions. 54% of Conservative MPs have worked in business or finance but only 18% of Labour MPs have. Whereas 25% of all MPs are nothing more than career politicians or union activists, that applies to 19% of Conservative MPs but 44% of the Labour ones. Other aspects are less surprising: the Labour benches include no one who has served in the armed services or worked in agriculture, whereas 9% of Conservative members have. Conversely, 15% of Labour MPs have done voluntary work but only 3% of Conservatives. One thing MPs from both the Labour and Conservative Parties appear to agree upon is that the health sector is one to stay away from with representation of only 4% from both parties.
Anyway, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
It will come as interesting news to Labour MP Major Dan Jarvis, MBE that no Labour MP has served in the armed services. And the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who served in Afghanistan as an infantry officer will probably be surprised too.
Clearly a very emotive and sad situation. But it is without doubt true that any bereavement payments either under the old scheme or the new one are completely inadequate to assist in looking after a family in any meaningful way. I assume therefore that the remaining family members are also entitled to other (also probably inadequate) benefit payments like Universal Credit or whatever.
Anyway, setting that aside for a moment, here's some questions. Okay, they are awkward but relevant just the same.
One, did this individual think so very little about his wife that he decided it was sensible to raise a family before having adequate life insurance in place for both parents? Why would anyone do that? If he did have adequate life insurance in place for both partners, why would his family now need help from the State? Is it the State's role to provide for everyone no matter what? Should there be any limits at all on state spending on benefits? Do we think that people bear no personal responsibility for their own decisions at all?
Whatever way you are going to vote, if you've got a family, get some adequate insurance ffs, it'll probably be cheaper than your mobile contract.
Now, on to Éoin Clarke. He's a whole different story. He lives in Northern Ireland, so he's a member of a party he can't vote for as they don't contest elections there! It seems even some members of the Labours see him as a fruitloop.
I am going to ignore your deflection of quoting opinion pieces on Eoin Clarke, because the election is not about him. Except to remind anyone that you don't have to support one of the parties that is on your constituency's ballot paper. I didn't when I lived in Buckingham, where the main parties don't oppose the Speaker.
You've highlighted the fact that each policy a Government sees fit to enact has at least two stories. One, created by the Government and its supporters and at least one put forward by its opposition. And, this case is no different. You're suggesting that anyone selfish enough to avail themselves of a family life should do so only when they also pay for adequate life insurance to take care of their spouse and offspring if they die at an early age. Presumably to do otherwise is a demonstration of reckless abandon and should be punished.
The counter argument is, of course, more palatable: since the second world war, the state has stepped in when citizens are in need. In this case, a bereaved widow, entitled to a state benefit is threatened with a significant, disproportionate reduction in the size of that benefit, purely based on the misfortunate of the date her husband finally loses his battle against canccer.
My suggestion is that it's entirely wrong to make such a massive, punitive cut to the amount of money a widow raising children should be able to rely on. It's an insignificant benefit to the Treasury, but a potentially cataclysmic wrecking of a family's finances.
Make no mistake, this Government will go after almost anyone. They've gone after migrants, they've gone after Unions, they've even gone after doctors. And now we see they're even prepared to go after widows and berreaved children. Who's next?
The point @cafcfan is making which you ignore and suggest there is a wish to punish widows, is that state benefits do not provide a lifestyle, they provide a bare subsistence. You are deluding yourself that the state benefit paid to a family "avails themselves of a family life". So given you can get £1/2m of cover for the cost of a few Starbuck coffees a week, and you choose not to take out insurance that will ensure continuation of family life, you are making a choice not to protect your family and to rely on state handouts that give bare subsistence. That is the action which really punishes those left behind. Some things the state can provide better than individuals can provide for themselves. Suddenly replacing the income of the breadwinner at any time in life is not one of them I suggest.
And the action which has reduced, for a matter of months a subsistence level state benefit that hardly touches the amount needed to have family life, does surely not compare with the negative impact of choosing not to protect your family for life. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of acknowledging whose primary responsibility is it for ensuring financial support for the family you choose to raise.
Clearly a very emotive and sad situation. But it is without doubt true that any bereavement payments either under the old scheme or the new one are completely inadequate to assist in looking after a family in any meaningful way. I assume therefore that the remaining family members are also entitled to other (also probably inadequate) benefit payments like Universal Credit or whatever.
Anyway, setting that aside for a moment, here's some questions. Okay, they are awkward but relevant just the same.
One, did this individual think so very little about his wife that he decided it was sensible to raise a family before having adequate life insurance in place for both parents? Why would anyone do that? If he did have adequate life insurance in place for both partners, why would his family now need help from the State? Is it the State's role to provide for everyone no matter what? Should there be any limits at all on state spending on benefits? Do we think that people bear no personal responsibility for their own decisions at all?
Whatever way you are going to vote, if you've got a family, get some adequate insurance ffs, it'll probably be cheaper than your mobile contract.
Now, on to Éoin Clarke. He's a whole different story. He lives in Northern Ireland, so he's a member of a party he can't vote for as they don't contest elections there! It seems even some members of the Labours see him as a fruitloop.
I am going to ignore your deflection of quoting opinion pieces on Eoin Clarke, because the election is not about him. Except to remind anyone that you don't have to support one of the parties that is on your constituency's ballot paper. I didn't when I lived in Buckingham, where the main parties don't oppose the Speaker.
You've highlighted the fact that each policy a Government sees fit to enact has at least two stories. One, created by the Government and its supporters and at least one put forward by its opposition. And, this case is no different. You're suggesting that anyone selfish enough to avail themselves of a family life should do so only when they also pay for adequate life insurance to take care of their spouse and offspring if they die at an early age. Presumably to do otherwise is a demonstration of reckless abandon and should be punished.
The counter argument is, of course, more palatable: since the second world war, the state has stepped in when citizens are in need. In this case, a bereaved widow, entitled to a state benefit is threatened with a significant, disproportionate reduction in the size of that benefit, purely based on the misfortunate of the date her husband finally loses his battle against canccer.
My suggestion is that it's entirely wrong to make such a massive, punitive cut to the amount of money a widow raising children should be able to rely on. It's an insignificant benefit to the Treasury, but a potentially cataclysmic wrecking of a family's finances.
Make no mistake, this Government will go after almost anyone. They've gone after migrants, they've gone after Unions, they've even gone after doctors. And now we see they're even prepared to go after widows and berreaved children. Who's next?
The point @cafcfan is making which you ignore and suggest there is a wish to punish widows, is that state benefits do not provide a lifestyle, they provide a bare subsistence. You are deluding yourself that the state benefit paid to a family "avails themselves of a family life". So given you can get £1/2m of cover for the cost of a few Starbuck coffees a week, and you choose not to take out insurance that will ensure continuation of family life, you are making a choice not to protect your family and to rely on state handouts that give bare subsistence. That is the action which really punishes those left behind. Some things the state can provide better than individuals can provide for themselves. Suddenly replacing the income of the breadwinner at any time in life is not one of them I suggest.
And the action which has reduced, for a matter of months a subsistence level state benefit that hardly touches the amount needed to have family life, does surely not compare with the negative impact of choosing not to protect your family for life. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of acknowledging whose primary responsibility is it for ensuring financial support for the family you choose to raise.
What about people diagnosed with certain medical conditions before they are able to afford life insurance, causing premiums to skyrocket? Very much doubt that they are able to afford life insurance for 'a few Starbucks coffees a week'. In fact a lot of families are unable to afford one Starbucks coffee a week, let alone a few. Are you really that hopelessly out of touch?
Once again another damming statistic of how this government is hitting the poor the hardest whilst protecting the rich.
It's an absolute f**king piss-take how much election discourse can be dominated by pictures of candidates f**king eating food. Yes, a still photo taken of someone mid-bite can make them look a little undignified! Gold star for whoever first worked that one out!
Videos of failing hospitals and schools should be the memes we share - that, or shitty interviews, gaffes, eggings etc. Instead, we have this bizarre sort of manufactured lolz. It's moronic. Sorry. I'm all for humiliating our oppressors, but like this? This isn't even a thing.
Agree entirely with your point, but my question is why communications directors/chief strategists allow their candidates to get into these situations.
Firstly, how do they not know modern cameras are not 1 click 1 picture, and take rolls of them at one time! It's almost impossible not to get a bad picture of someone eating.
Secondly, why do they think we believe that eating a cone of chips makes her 'one of us'.
It's a lose lose, if she gets away with eating them on camera then no one will care, if she looks, somehow, contemptuously at them then she looks like, well, Theresa May.
Clearly a very emotive and sad situation. But it is without doubt true that any bereavement payments either under the old scheme or the new one are completely inadequate to assist in looking after a family in any meaningful way. I assume therefore that the remaining family members are also entitled to other (also probably inadequate) benefit payments like Universal Credit or whatever.
Anyway, setting that aside for a moment, here's some questions. Okay, they are awkward but relevant just the same.
One, did this individual think so very little about his wife that he decided it was sensible to raise a family before having adequate life insurance in place for both parents? Why would anyone do that? If he did have adequate life insurance in place for both partners, why would his family now need help from the State? Is it the State's role to provide for everyone no matter what? Should there be any limits at all on state spending on benefits? Do we think that people bear no personal responsibility for their own decisions at all?
Whatever way you are going to vote, if you've got a family, get some adequate insurance ffs, it'll probably be cheaper than your mobile contract.
Now, on to Éoin Clarke. He's a whole different story. He lives in Northern Ireland, so he's a member of a party he can't vote for as they don't contest elections there! It seems even some members of the Labours see him as a fruitloop.
I am going to ignore your deflection of quoting opinion pieces on Eoin Clarke, because the election is not about him. Except to remind anyone that you don't have to support one of the parties that is on your constituency's ballot paper. I didn't when I lived in Buckingham, where the main parties don't oppose the Speaker.
You've highlighted the fact that each policy a Government sees fit to enact has at least two stories. One, created by the Government and its supporters and at least one put forward by its opposition. And, this case is no different. You're suggesting that anyone selfish enough to avail themselves of a family life should do so only when they also pay for adequate life insurance to take care of their spouse and offspring if they die at an early age. Presumably to do otherwise is a demonstration of reckless abandon and should be punished.
The counter argument is, of course, more palatable: since the second world war, the state has stepped in when citizens are in need. In this case, a bereaved widow, entitled to a state benefit is threatened with a significant, disproportionate reduction in the size of that benefit, purely based on the misfortunate of the date her husband finally loses his battle against canccer.
My suggestion is that it's entirely wrong to make such a massive, punitive cut to the amount of money a widow raising children should be able to rely on. It's an insignificant benefit to the Treasury, but a potentially cataclysmic wrecking of a family's finances.
Make no mistake, this Government will go after almost anyone. They've gone after migrants, they've gone after Unions, they've even gone after doctors. And now we see they're even prepared to go after widows and berreaved children. Who's next?
The point @cafcfan is making which you ignore and suggest there is a wish to punish widows, is that state benefits do not provide a lifestyle, they provide a bare subsistence. You are deluding yourself that the state benefit paid to a family "avails themselves of a family life". So given you can get £1/2m of cover for the cost of a few Starbuck coffees a week, and you choose not to take out insurance that will ensure continuation of family life, you are making a choice not to protect your family and to rely on state handouts that give bare subsistence. That is the action which really punishes those left behind. Some things the state can provide better than individuals can provide for themselves. Suddenly replacing the income of the breadwinner at any time in life is not one of them I suggest.
And the action which has reduced, for a matter of months a subsistence level state benefit that hardly touches the amount needed to have family life, does surely not compare with the negative impact of choosing not to protect your family for life. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of acknowledging whose primary responsibility is it for ensuring financial support for the family you choose to raise.
I am not deluding myself and I object to you making that stupid, unfounded suggestion. Re-read the part of my post that includes the quote you've used. As you should be able to see, I am not suggesting that benefits provides the means for couples to have a family; I am saying that, the suggestion seems to be that if you have a family ("avail yourself of a family life"), you should only do so if you can afford life cover.
The point I am making - which perhaps you have decided to ignore - is that the level of benefit being provided by the Government is being reduced. So the question to ask is "why is an amount of benefit deemed necessary one month ago, now seen as excessive and therefore cut substantially?" What has changed between last month and next month, which means that a widow and her children are less in need of benefit from next month than they were last month?
This is about cuts. Specifically, cutting a beneft which is needed.
If you think your patronising, sweeping suggestion that life cover is available at the cost of "a few Starbuck (sic) coffees a week" is appropriate in every case, then you're suggesting that no benefit should be paid to anyone widowed. In other words, we've made a mistake in paying benefits to widows and bereaved children for 70 years. I don't agree.
You've decided - clearly - to ignore those that cannot spare the cost of "a few Starbuck coffees a week". And, frankly, there are a lot of people who live sufficiently close to the breadline that cannot afford the luxury of putting even a few quid away each month. And there are those for whom a personal, medical or family issue prevents them from being offered life cover at an affordable cost.
This Government has taken a swipe at a pretty vulnerable group of people at the worst time in their lives. Look at the video. We are - thanks to this Government - living in a country where this man needed to die as soon as possible, or cost his family fifty thousand quid. I think that's despicable.
Comments
For the record again - I'm not a fan of May, there is no party or person in Politics who I'd say I was a fan of. As I see it, I think you'll be voting for the best of 3 evils come the erection.
Cameron and Blair were very good at this and therefore you could open up their audience. Major and Corbyn come across as authentic and decent so got away with more. Farage managed to combine the two.
May & Brown not so good,hence not putting May into 'difficult' situations. Brown was braver, perhaps to brave.
I think most of us would just like politicians to speak with a bit of heart, knowledge and conviction.
And I'm not aware, or would even contemplate the existence, of anyone who remotely thinks she knows what she's talking about.
Besides, her seat is pretty safe - I think pretty much anyone (animal, vegetable or mineral) with a red rossette would get elected.
The full result for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is:
Diane Abbott (Labour) 31, 357
Simon De Deney (Lib Dem) 2, 492
Heather Finlay (Green Party) 7,281
Keith Fraser (UKIP) 1, 085
Amy Gray (Conservative) 7, 349
Jon Homan (Animal Welfare Party) (221)
Jonathan Silberman (Communist League) 102
When it comes to 8 June, voters interested in increased police numbers will remember the pledge and forget the gaffe.
And then, quite often, the same people complain about politicians not standing up for what they believe in.
Colum Eastwood of the SDLP suggested an anti-hard Brexit electoral pact in Northern Ireland, but Naomi Long of Alliance said no, because she feared it would just be deemed Irish Nationalist. But I actually think that such a pact could work and could garner anti-Brexit Unionist votes if Sinn Fein was to announce that they would stand aside, for this election only, to ensure non-abstentionist anti-Brexit MPs were returned to Westminster (which would cause HMG more problems, with additional votes against the kind of Brexit that seems increasingly likely under this PM). Not that that would happen, because it would require Sinn Fein to look beyond their own noses...
BTW I didn't hear the car-crash interview, but I heard an earlier one on the Today programme, and she wasn't good there on the figures either. Normally if somebody messes one up they usually improve in subsequent ones, but she apparently got worse. I therefore think you are right, fundamentally she is lazy. As a constituency MP I guess she has her strengths but she simply isn't competent enough to be a shadow minister of anything and I can't find any reason to defend Labour over the noise around this. She shouldn't be in the team, to borrow @Bournemouth Addick ;'s Thuram analogy.
May's bacon butty moment.
As a life long Labour man (yes I'm called a champagne socialist but my roots say otherwise) it saddens me greatly what he is doing to my party.
Videos of failing hospitals and schools should be the memes we share - that, or shitty interviews, gaffes, eggings etc. Instead, we have this bizarre sort of manufactured lolz. It's moronic. Sorry. I'm all for humiliating our oppressors, but like this? This isn't even a thing.
You've highlighted the fact that each policy a Government sees fit to enact has at least two stories. One, created by the Government and its supporters and at least one put forward by its opposition. And, this case is no different. You're suggesting that anyone selfish enough to avail themselves of a family life should do so only when they also pay for adequate life insurance to take care of their spouse and offspring if they die at an early age. Presumably to do otherwise is a demonstration of reckless abandon and should be punished.
The counter argument is, of course, more palatable: since the second world war, the state has stepped in when citizens are in need. In this case, a bereaved widow, entitled to a state benefit is threatened with a significant, disproportionate reduction in the size of that benefit, purely based on the misfortunate of the date her husband finally loses his battle against canccer.
My suggestion is that it's entirely wrong to make such a massive, punitive cut to the amount of money a widow raising children should be able to rely on. It's an insignificant benefit to the Treasury, but a potentially cataclysmic wrecking of a family's finances.
Make no mistake, this Government will go after almost anyone. They've gone after migrants, they've gone after Unions, they've even gone after doctors. And now we see they're even prepared to go after widows and berreaved children. Who's next?
None of the figures she said could be seen as adding up, the real costs of hiring and training 10,000 police in the timeframe of 4-5 years would be in excess of 500,000,000 not 300,000,000 when you account for employment benefits, equipment and training costs.
Even her 'right' figures are incorrect.
Strikes me as lazy
Didn't she get them right in the other 5 though?
What about May failing to prepare for her Brexit meeting with the EU leaders that left them utterly flabbergasted as to how little she knew of the coming procress? Is that not just laziness but dangerous incompetence?
These are claims that have been "leaked" by a source. What did she actually say or misinterpreted? Or has she just rustled a few feathers?
We are effectively in a divorce from the EU. Divorces are messy and things are said out of anger and frustration.
No one apart from a very few altruistic individuals would consider politics as a sensible career path unless they were mad, hopeless or both. Anyone with half a brain would be doing something else. Something with a remuneration that recognises their worth and something that has a degree of job security perhaps? The only other alternative is to go back in time when politicians pay didn't matter because they all had a lordship and private means.
I've found some good research from the date of the last election: https://smithinstitutethinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/who-governs-britain.pdf
Now I've always thought the the House of Commons was chock-a-block full of ex-lawyers who couldn't hack it in private practice. And that no Tory MPs had ever had a proper job. It seems I was wrong.
Only 14% of MPs are lawyers. Some remarkable differences emerge regarding other professions. 54% of Conservative MPs have worked in business or finance but only 18% of Labour MPs have. Whereas 25% of all MPs are nothing more than career politicians or union activists, that applies to 19% of Conservative MPs but 44% of the Labour ones. Other aspects are less surprising: the Labour benches include no one who has served in the armed services or worked in agriculture, whereas 9% of Conservative members have. Conversely, 15% of Labour MPs have done voluntary work but only 3% of Conservatives. One thing MPs from both the Labour and Conservative Parties appear to agree upon is that the health sector is one to stay away from with representation of only 4% from both parties.
Anyway, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.
And the action which has reduced, for a matter of months a subsistence level state benefit that hardly touches the amount needed to have family life, does surely not compare with the negative impact of choosing not to protect your family for life. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of acknowledging whose primary responsibility is it for ensuring financial support for the family you choose to raise.
Once again another damming statistic of how this government is hitting the poor the hardest whilst protecting the rich.
Firstly, how do they not know modern cameras are not 1 click 1 picture, and take rolls of them at one time! It's almost impossible not to get a bad picture of someone eating.
Secondly, why do they think we believe that eating a cone of chips makes her 'one of us'.
It's a lose lose, if she gets away with eating them on camera then no one will care, if she looks, somehow, contemptuously at them then she looks like, well, Theresa May.
The point I am making - which perhaps you have decided to ignore - is that the level of benefit being provided by the Government is being reduced. So the question to ask is "why is an amount of benefit deemed necessary one month ago, now seen as excessive and therefore cut substantially?" What has changed between last month and next month, which means that a widow and her children are less in need of benefit from next month than they were last month?
This is about cuts. Specifically, cutting a beneft which is needed.
If you think your patronising, sweeping suggestion that life cover is available at the cost of "a few Starbuck (sic) coffees a week" is appropriate in every case, then you're suggesting that no benefit should be paid to anyone widowed. In other words, we've made a mistake in paying benefits to widows and bereaved children for 70 years. I don't agree.
You've decided - clearly - to ignore those that cannot spare the cost of "a few Starbuck coffees a week". And, frankly, there are a lot of people who live sufficiently close to the breadline that cannot afford the luxury of putting even a few quid away each month. And there are those for whom a personal, medical or family issue prevents them from being offered life cover at an affordable cost.
This Government has taken a swipe at a pretty vulnerable group of people at the worst time in their lives. Look at the video. We are - thanks to this Government - living in a country where this man needed to die as soon as possible, or cost his family fifty thousand quid. I think that's despicable.