Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 5)
Discussion
Disastrous said:
Even adding “I agree, they’ve managed this incredibly poorly. A better way would have been to...” makes you sound ever so slightly less weird.
..which is exactly what I said about the ennoblement at the start of the week. Clearly a long time in politics. 
Anyway, you're right, the endless picking apart of my views is extremely dull. Time to end this particular discussion?
IforB said:
Typical of you Tuna.
Instead of looking at what he is saying and the message. You just try to incorrectly pour scorn by misrepresenting figures that you have plucked out of the air.
You just keep showing your true colours.
Stewie explicitly questioned the accuracy, so it's natural to try and get some context. Instead of looking at what he is saying and the message. You just try to incorrectly pour scorn by misrepresenting figures that you have plucked out of the air.
You just keep showing your true colours.
And please, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting things, tell me what the right figures are? I got the number of children in schools from the Institute of Government here: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publicat...
Where was I pouring scorn? You need to get over yourself here. If someone says "there's a problem", a valid reaction is "how big is this problem?" - yet you seem to insist the only possible response is either complete agreement or total opposition. It's just weird.
Randy Winkman said:
Helicopter123 said:
mike74 said:
It tells me the govt are rightly not acknowledging the virtue signaling, "like" seeking, pathetic band wagon jumpers.
Although I expect many of these companies actually realise that this whole child poverty, starving kiddies narrative is nothing but bulls
t and fake news, but the opportunity to earn some invaluable positive publicity and social media brownie points is too good to pass up.
Christ mate, re-read that and then give your head a wobble.Although I expect many of these companies actually realise that this whole child poverty, starving kiddies narrative is nothing but bulls
t and fake news, but the opportunity to earn some invaluable positive publicity and social media brownie points is too good to pass up.Food poverty amongst the most vulnerable in society and come up with that?
I read this earlier and thought it considerably depressing that people actually think like this.
mike74 said:
It tells me the govt are rightly not acknowledging the virtue signaling, "like" seeking, pathetic band wagon jumpers.
Although I expect many of these companies actually realise that this whole child poverty, starving kiddies narrative is nothing but bullst and fake news, but the opportunity to earn some invaluable positive publicity and social media brownie points is too good to pass up.
Doesn’t exist because you’ve never seen it, You really are a Although I expect many of these companies actually realise that this whole child poverty, starving kiddies narrative is nothing but bulls
t and fake news, but the opportunity to earn some invaluable positive publicity and social media brownie points is too good to pass up. aren’t you?Tuna said:
IforB said:
Typical of you Tuna.
Instead of looking at what he is saying and the message. You just try to incorrectly pour scorn by misrepresenting figures that you have plucked out of the air.
You just keep showing your true colours.
Stewie explicitly questioned the accuracy, so it's natural to try and get some context. Instead of looking at what he is saying and the message. You just try to incorrectly pour scorn by misrepresenting figures that you have plucked out of the air.
You just keep showing your true colours.
And please, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting things, tell me what the right figures are? I got the number of children in schools from the Institute of Government here: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publicat...
Where was I pouring scorn? You need to get over yourself here. If someone says "there's a problem", a valid reaction is "how big is this problem?" - yet you seem to insist the only possible response is either complete agreement or total opposition. It's just weird.
I really don't want to be rude, I would much rather have a polite conversation, but the way you misrepresent and always seek to twist everything is infuriating.
Just ask yourself what you are actually trying to achieve. What is your actual position on the child poverty? Is it acceptable? If not, why not say it and make it clear that your soul is not fundamentally broken.
Tuna said:
Disastrous said:
Even adding “I agree, they’ve managed this incredibly poorly. A better way would have been to...” makes you sound ever so slightly less weird.
..which is exactly what I said about the ennoblement at the start of the week. Clearly a long time in politics. Anyway, you're right, the endless picking apart of my views is extremely dull. Time to end this particular discussion?
For what it’s worth I don’t think it should become a witch hunt of ‘non agreeing views’ but I just feel like a lot more of a civil debate could be had if we started from a mutual position of agreement that child poverty (of the topic du jour) is awful and perhaps just disagree on the best solution.
Just a thought.
Tuna said:
IforB said:
There is no point trying to explain it to you.
No, I insist. Don't just run away screaming "it's all lies" - I want to understand how big the problem is.4.2 million children in relative poverty. 6.7 million children in primary and secondary school. Please explain.
For example, I am sure you are aware there are children who are too young to be in primary education.
So why not stop making stuff up in a vain attempt to scupper the argument of an actual expert? You may get a little more respect then.
If you simply haven't got a clue about statistical analysis, then fine, I will help out, but I suspect you won't accept it.
Afterall, if you won't listen to the bloke who is actually knowledgeable and just want to use whatever random figures you can dream up to try and change the argument he has made, then I suspect I'll be on a hiding to nothing.
Red 4 said:
Tuna. Are you saying your figures are correct ?
If you say something then be prepared to stand behind it. Don't ask others to explain the figures you are quoting, there's a good chap.
Are you saying YOUR figures are right ?
I said the figures seemed odd, and I've given a link to the source. The Institute for Government seems like a reputable source.If you say something then be prepared to stand behind it. Don't ask others to explain the figures you are quoting, there's a good chap.
Are you saying YOUR figures are right ?
Are you saying these are wrong?
Disastrous said:
For what it’s worth I don’t think it should become a witch hunt of ‘non agreeing views’ but I just feel like a lot more of a civil debate could be had if we started from a mutual position of agreement that child poverty (of the topic du jour) is awful and perhaps just disagree on the best solution.
Just a thought.
Why on earth should somebody need to preface their post with "I don't like child poverty" to be worthy of civil debate?Just a thought.
Nobody likes it. It's a given.
Maybe starting with that assumption is more conducive to civil debate?
IforB said:
Start by using the figures the bloke who knows what he is talking about is using, rather than the ones you have made up yourself to make a point.
Don't start lying please - I gave the link and commented they appear to give odd results, you can follow it and you're welcome to give better numbers. And as ever, stop trying to put words in my mouth. Understanding the scale of the problem is absolutely key here.
If it's 1 in 10 children, we could say that this is a problem for benefits and state support.
If it's 1 in 3 children, we could say it's a problem for minimum wage
If it's 1 in 2 children, this is a structural problem.
It's absolute nonsense to even ask if I think child poverty is acceptable - of course it isn't. We're on exactly the same page here, yet you don't appear to actually want to discuss how it might be solved. Apparently we should just run around wailing and crying, and not even considering what is to be done. If half of our children are in poverty, throwing around a few school meals is *not* going to fix things.
amusingduck said:
Disastrous said:
For what it’s worth I don’t think it should become a witch hunt of ‘non agreeing views’ but I just feel like a lot more of a civil debate could be had if we started from a mutual position of agreement that child poverty (of the topic du jour) is awful and perhaps just disagree on the best solution.
Just a thought.
Why on earth should somebody need to preface their post with "I don't like child poverty" to be worthy of civil debate?Just a thought.
Nobody likes it. It's a given.
Maybe starting with that assumption is more conducive to civil debate?
amusingduck said:
Why on earth should somebody need to preface their post with "I don't like child poverty" to be worthy of civil debate?
Nobody likes it. It's a given.
Maybe starting with that assumption is more conducive to civil debate?
It is quite astonishing how puerile the debate has become. Grown up political debate is about looking at a problem and considering the range of solutions - which will inevitably be influenced by an individual's political leanings. Instead we've got people jumping up and down claiming that only they can provide the only possible answer to what are perennial social problems, and that anyone else must therefore just be denying the problem even exists.Nobody likes it. It's a given.
Maybe starting with that assumption is more conducive to civil debate?
IforB said:
The thing is. You say you don't like it, but then you (or others) defend a Government that is perpetuating that and instead of saying "yeah, that is crap." You just get into a row and then morons start chucking in comments about "virtue signalling" and creating instant contempt.
Quote me.You can't.
You know why? Because if kids are getting neglected, that's entirely the Governments responsibility to stamp out.
Tuna said:
Red 4 said:
Tuna. Are you saying your figures are correct ?
If you say something then be prepared to stand behind it. Don't ask others to explain the figures you are quoting, there's a good chap.
Are you saying YOUR figures are right ?
I said the figures seemed odd, and I've given a link to the source. The Institute for Government seems like a reputable source.If you say something then be prepared to stand behind it. Don't ask others to explain the figures you are quoting, there's a good chap.
Are you saying YOUR figures are right ?
Are you saying these are wrong?
A) I'm not the one quoting them - you are.
B) I haven't checked.
Why are you getting so hung up on the stats ?
Are you saying the figures - that you have quoted - are a nonsense so all this poverty stuff is a nonsense too ?
Is this the point you are trying to make ?
As has been pointed out you only choose points which suit your agenda but then you whinge and moan when people criticise you.
That is just weird and it also makes you transparent.
Why don't you check the stats again. I'm sure there are many points of reference.
Tuna said:
It is quite astonishing how puerile the debate has become. Grown up political debate is about looking at a problem and considering the range of solutions - which will inevitably be influenced by an individual's political leanings. Instead we've got people jumping up and down claiming that only they can provide the only possible answer to what are perennial social problems, and that anyone else must therefore just be denying the problem even exists.
As regards this thread, I'll think you'll find that was mainly because mike74 did say that child poverty doesn't exist. 2000 children’s doctors have come forward now, against the govt’s policy with regard to child hunger.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/24/...
Are these all virtue signalling, Marxist fake news merchants too?
I really think this is silly. We get that most Tories don’t believe in this stuff, but Rashford has shown them up once. Why do they think he (and others) won’t succeed a 2nd time?
From a management of optics perspective this is a huge act of political suicide.
So how long until the U-turn? I give it until the end of next week.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/24/...
Are these all virtue signalling, Marxist fake news merchants too?
I really think this is silly. We get that most Tories don’t believe in this stuff, but Rashford has shown them up once. Why do they think he (and others) won’t succeed a 2nd time?
From a management of optics perspective this is a huge act of political suicide.
So how long until the U-turn? I give it until the end of next week.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff