Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[B'stard Child]

anonymoususer said:

Another snippet just in:

Should the Conservatives be re elected in order to get to net zero households be required to surrender their electric and gas ovens.
Each household will receive vouchers to purchase a microwave and an air fryer.
Not to be outdone Labour will attempt to match the proposal by going after food mixers with any motor over 300watts

Edited by anonymoususer on Sunday 26th May 13:38

Never stop fella

[Mojooo]

732NM said:

Mojooo said:

They tried to bring back imperial measurements and failed - making do with allowing wine to be sold in pints.

Imperial never went away. UK use both systems daily.

Metric must be used for trade sales by quantity - the only exemptions are for pint beer/cider and milk bottles if I remember correctly.

Road signs and baby weights were not in scope as they are not used for trade.

[anonymoususer]

More news:

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to revert to being known as Department of Health and Social Security. (DHSS)

Jo Churchill to make a statement at 9am Tuesday Morning Ms Churchill will say that "whilst I am leaving government at the next election, I will be going out with a bang. Renaming the Department back to being known as the DHSS will reinstall the stigma that workshy benefit layabouts used to have to experience. Every one knew that the brown envelope with DHSS on it meant that some scrounger was getting a government handout.
By renaming the department not only will it create work as signage will have to be replaced and new paper printed, it will signal a change to our attitude to benefit culture and demonstrate to the workshy that we mean business

[FiF]

Must admit I LoL'd at this gag on Twitter.

The election is like being a child in hospital. You get the welcome news that Jimmy Savile's visit has been cancelled. Then coming down the corridor is the sound of a didgeridoo.

Sorry back to the serious chat.

[hidetheelephants]

Sway said:

Can't help but think even an unpaid, residential, Army 'apprenticeship college' which perhaps tailors things to 25% learning, 25% improving (PT, leadership skills, etc.) and 50% 'doing' would have been something we'd have looked at collectively as a really rather good idea.

That used to be a thing; it was called Welbeck college, it closed a few years ago.

[bitchstewie]

Because the Government cut the funding.

Couldn't make it up.

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

When will you be volunteering for your mandatory year doing what the Conservatives tell you to do?

The civic duty option is 25 days, assuming 8 hour days that makes 200 hours. IMO it should be spread out over a few years and done as hours rather than days.

For me:

• I am applying to be a school governor - as I said earlier, the application process is a PITA and I bet a lot give up at this stage. Once I match with a school, it will be an average of 10 hours a month of work IIRC.
• I volunteer for working through charities through my professional body, but I don't keep track of how many hours I do.
• I did D of E so spent two hours a week volunteering at an after school club (primary) for 2-3 years. Assuming a 39 week year, that would have been 156-234 hours in total. For bronze I entertained the elderly, so add a couple of hours a week for six months.
• I don't do this 'actively' like some in my village but I do pick up litter as I walk. Don't know if you would count that or not because I go out to walk, not to pick up litter.
• School were quite keen for us to help others - bake sales, helping year 7s with reading etc, so I probably did add up a few hours there, even if it was just small things.

I don't remember them using this line, but "to whom much is given, much will be required" seemed to sum up the attitude from the teachers.

[bitchstewie]

All of which is very commendable, genuinely.

But you've chosen to do all of of those things which I don't think is the same thing as the Conservatives, who pitch themselves as the party of personal choice and freedom, mandating you have to do them.

[p1stonhead]

Problem for young people is -

What does this country have in store for them?

Politicians hate them.
They have no hope of owning a home.
Public services are absolutely fked.
Our waterways are full of st.
Salaries are stagnated.
University costs a fortune.
They probably can’t afford to have kids.

Why on earth would they do their ‘civic duty’ for a country they probably don’t feel they have a stake in?

They’ll all be giving two fingers and quite rightly for most of them.

[bitchstewie]

It's the social contract thing.

If you're 18-24 can someone give me a single reason you would vote for this lot?

Edited by bhstewie on Sunday 26th May 14:55

[2xChevrons]

p1stonhead said:

Problem for young people is -

What does this country have in store for them?

Politicians hate them.
They have no hope of owning a home.
Public services are absolutely fked.
Our waterways are full of st.
Salaries are stagnated.
University costs a fortune.
They probably can’t afford to have kids.

Why on earth would they do their ‘civic duty’ for a country they probably don’t feel they have a stake in?

They’ll all be giving two fingers and quite rightly for most of them.

[Derek Smith]

Derek Smith said:

Middle 70s here. When my wife told me I thought it one of her little jokes. Knowing how stupid this lot was, I checked online. Still had trouble believing it. She's recorded KKwatang on a news programme for me. I think I'll enjoy his justification more than the Monaco GP.

Bizarre.

Just seen the recording.

Bizarre just doesn't cover it. Scary though. Walking amongst us is bad enough, but he was in the cabinet.

Well worth digging out the farce if you can. And if you don't want to sleep at night.

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

All of which is very commendable, genuinely.

But you've chosen to do all of of those things which I don't think is the same thing as the Conservatives, who pitch themselves as the party of personal choice and freedom, mandating you have to do them.

I see this as give and take - we are given extraordinary wealth and security, even with high inflation and gas bills. It was only in 1975 that 50% of people in this country had central heating so the fact that it is seen as essential is really quite a recent development - I'm sure many here remember having ice on the inside of the windows or (like me) parents who told them about it. So even if things have been a bit crap for the last few years, we are still pretty lucky.
In exchange for those benefits, we have a moral responsibility to continue to contribute and to make it even better (the social contract).

We also don't have a choice about everything - I had to go to school, even if I didn't want to. I have to hand over x% of my wages in taxes, even if I don't want to or think x% is too high or like how it is spent. This is really just a tax on time, if you want to think about it like that.

On the other hand, it helps the individual: we have about 800k 16-24 year olds who do not have jobs and are not in education. They are not helping themselves in the long run because even entry level jobs give skills that are used in the workplace and assuming they are on benefits are net takers from society. Everyone needs a prod every now and then, and getting people active (socially and physically) will be good for them and teach them new skills.

If you want encouragement rather than compulsion then fine, but I think the people doing it will be people who are already active in life and work taking part, not the people who would benefit the most, so it only deals with one half of it.

[bitchstewie]

Encouragement is something I would support and that's where you're back to the bare cheek of encouraging younger people to volunteer to "give something back" after years decimating youth services and taking away so much from them.

It's the social contract thing.

As I asked above if you're 18-24 can someone give me a single reason you would vote for this lot?

[captain_cynic]

bhstewie said:

Encouragement is something I would support and that's where you're back to the bare cheek of encouraging younger people to volunteer to "give something back" after years decimating youth services and taking away so much from them.

It's the social contract thing.

As I asked above if you're 18-24 can someone give me a single reason you would vote for this lot?

I remember back when I was 18, I didn't want to vote for anyone. However voting was mandatory in Australia so I had to, at the very least go and get my name crossed off so I didn't get fined.

In Australia, the Australian greens were the only party remotely interested in helping young people. Sadly, that's not the case here. Major parties safely ignore the youth vote because they don't really vote in large numbers, going after families means you get two votes for one policy and older people have more time to vote, so why bother with single, low wage earning and mostly childless youth.

[Mr Penguin]

bhstewie said:

Encouragement is something I would support and that's where you're back to the bare cheek of encouraging younger people to volunteer to "give something back" after years decimating youth services and taking away so much from them.

It's the social contract thing.

As I asked above if you're 18-24 can someone give me a single reason you would vote for this lot?

I didn't use the term give something back, but at 18 they have had 4 years of pre-school then 14 years of formal education and mostly contributed nothing to society (obviously the expectation is that they do so for the next 50 years). If you want to make life a set of transactions where you extract as much as you can from others, then children have a good deal - youth clubs or no youth clubs.

I'd make this policy for people of all ages, perhaps do 200 hours of "civic duty" every five years (age 21-25, 26-30 etc). Older people have a different set of skills that are useful too.

[President Merkin]

Mr Penguin said:

I didn't use the term give something back, but at 18 they have had 4 years of pre-school then 14 years of formal education and mostly contributed nothing to society (obviously the expectation is that they do so for the next 50 years). If you want to make life a set of transactions where you extract as much as you can from others, then children have a good deal - youth clubs or no youth clubs.

I'd make this policy for people of all ages, perhaps do 200 hours of "civic duty" every five years (age 21-25, 26-30 etc). Older people have a different set of skills that are useful too.

This is as laughable as your previous post. You certainly don't remeber iced up windows but you're free to experience them any time you like. Just stop paying your bills & the private sector will oblige you. No child wants to go to school & everyone has to pay tax. And kids do not have it sweet because the state pays to educate them for 14 years. The state is investing in itself by doing so. It is a collective effort to ensure the survival of the country just as every other developed country in the world does. I have read many a weasel word on here to justify whichever authoritarian reflex the dying embers of this regime has vomited out but yours are by far the funniest.

I would defnitely read this one again. Kids should do national service because we have central heating & therefore, they owe us. Genius.

[Garvin]

Mr Penguin said:

bhstewie said:

Encouragement is something I would support and that's where you're back to the bare cheek of encouraging younger people to volunteer to "give something back" after years decimating youth services and taking away so much from them.

It's the social contract thing.

As I asked above if you're 18-24 can someone give me a single reason you would vote for this lot?

I didn't use the term give something back, but at 18 they have had 4 years of pre-school then 14 years of formal education and mostly contributed nothing to society (obviously the expectation is that they do so for the next 50 years). If you want to make life a set of transactions where you extract as much as you can from others, then children have a good deal - youth clubs or no youth clubs.

I'd make this policy for people of all ages, perhaps do 200 hours of "civic duty" every five years (age 21-25, 26-30 etc). Older people have a different set of skills that are useful too.

I think society, on the whole, no longer think in these terms i.e. what can I do to help community/society rather it’s more of what can I extract (that others have to provide).

On BS’s question one has to ask what reason are any party giving for the 18-24 group to vote for apart from the tired ‘not the current lot’? Then you look at the NEETs and wonder what sort of credible social contract can possibly be drawn up with/for them?

[hidetheelephants]

Derek Smith said:

Derek Smith said:

Middle 70s here. When my wife told me I thought it one of her little jokes. Knowing how stupid this lot was, I checked online. Still had trouble believing it. She's recorded KKwatang on a news programme for me. I think I'll enjoy his justification more than the Monaco GP.

Bizarre.

Just seen the recording.

Bizarre just doesn't cover it. Scary though. Walking amongst us is bad enough, but he was in the cabinet.

Well worth digging out the farce if you can. And if you don't want to sleep at night.

He was chancellor to Lettuce Truss. That happened. The membership want her as leader again, their thoughts on KK were not revealed.

[Mr Penguin]

Garvin said:

I think society, on the whole, no longer think in these terms i.e. what can I do to help community/society rather it’s more of what can I extract (that others have to provide).

On BS’s question one has to ask what reason are any party giving for the 18-24 group to vote for apart from the tired ‘not the current lot’? Then you look at the NEETs and wonder what sort of credible social contract can possibly be drawn up with/for them?

The Conservatives did cut the deficit and debt to gdp until 2019, which is money that 18-24 year olds would have had to eventually pay back. Obviously it shot up during Covid and Ukraine and it needs to be brought under control, but spending always goes up in a crisis (I am not justifying all the spending).

Voting should be about the policies of the next five years, not the last, although it is sensible to look at past record to see what you think they will do next. I guess it depends on whether you think the Conservatives will not elect a Liz Truss again or whether Labour can keep spending under control despite promising not to raise taxes and past record. It's unlikely that both would keep spending down or raise taxes to pay for the excess and I don't really trust either to do it.

Youth unemployment is far too high and given how easy it is to get an unskilled job or apprenticeship in a trade there is no excuse for most young people to be NEET. There are no adverse economic conditions and you can go to uni as long as you get the grades.