Starmer Defends Decision to Deny Compensation for Waspi Women Amid Backlash

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, mokwit said:

You are clearly positing that what is in the manifesto counts when it suits your cause e.g. trying defend a POLICY U TURN.

I have explained the part manifestos play in elections and their role in Government.  They represent the Government’s election promises and are the basis of the Government’s mandate.

 
Once again refer Salisbury Convention.

[mokwit]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I have explained the part manifestos play in elections and their role in Government.  They represent the Government’s election promises and are the basis of the Government’s mandate.

 
Once again refer Salisbury Convention.

Salisbury convention on second and third readinsg and manifesto is completely irrelevant to Politicians promoting themselves on an issue for years and then going back on it once in power - or are you saying that they can just erase all that and the promises made by just omitting it from the mainfesto? If that was a deliberate strategy or their defence, they are utterly dishonest scum and completely unfit to govern.

[The Cyclist]

This should really go in the Budget thread, but it is apposite here as a.measure of the horse manure spouted pre GE by Starmer in particular and Labour in General

 

Quote

The UK government’s borrowing costs have surged to their highest level over Germany in decades.

A selloff in UK government bonds has pushed the yield, or interest rate, on 10-year gilts up to 4.63%, from 4.55% last night. That’s the highest level since October 2023.

German 10-year bund yield have risen by less, to 2.28%.

As a results, the spread between UK and German 10-year borrowing costs has widened to 235 basis points.

That’s wider than after the mini-budget in 2022; the Financial Times says its the highest since German reunification in 1990.

 

1. Growth

 

2. Fixing the foundations of the economy

 

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

 

[The Cyclist]

A poser to ponder 😀😀

 

If Keir Starmer had said before the election that he would remove the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners, add inheritance to family farms and family businesses, council tax & energy price increases, raise university tuition fees, plaster mass-scale solar panels on thousands of acres of prime farmland despite huge local community objections, spaff £22bn of taxpayers' money on carbon capture machines, give £12 billion  of taxpayers' money to Africa for climate change, betray WASPI women, hang out with BlackRock, pledge a 20% cut in meat & dairy and get exposed for receiving over £100,000 worth of freebies - he almost certainly wouldn't have won. He duped the electorate. An utterly shameless display of snake oil political salesmanship. And still he lectures all of us in that gratingly sanctimonious manner of his like we are all somehow the problem here.

 

With thanks to Anon.

[scottiejohn]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have explained the part manifestos play in elections and their role in Government.  They represent the Government’s election promises and are the basis of the Government’s mandate.

 
Once again refer Salisbury Convention.

It means and I quote the UK Parliament!

"In practice, it means that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading, a Government Bill mentioned in an election manifesto."

Salisbury Doctrine - UK Parliament

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

You are clearly positing that what is in the manifesto counts when it suits your cause e.g. trying defend a POLICY U TURN.

If it’s not in the manifesto and was not announced as a policy after the election Toom it is not a Government policy, and hence cannot be a U-Turn.

 

[edit ‘after the eke tion’]

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

It means and I quote the UK Parliament!

"In practice, it means that the Lords does not try to vote down at second or third reading, a Government Bill mentioned in an election manifesto."

Salisbury Doctrine - UK Parliament

Did you read the bit about why?

[Rampant Rabbit]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

 

There is no reason not to play this other than totalitarian political control to control the image of the Dear Leader.

 

 

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If it’s not in the manifesto and was not announced as a policy after the U-Turn it is not a Government policy, and hence cannot be a U-Turn.

 

 

That's YOUR definition. You are trying to control the terms of the debate with this U turn definition tactic. I'm not falling for these Bolshevik language tactics.

 

It is about RENEGING  on promises very publicly made as part of campaigning. Nothing to do with whether or not it is a U turn, just quite simply promising something and then RENEGING. This is seemingly the definition of everyone except you. What part of this don't you understand?

 

Again if you are saying that they can promise anything and then just defend going back on that by not including it in a manifesto then that is not the conduct expected of politicians in the UK and hasn't been for centuries. Starmer and his cabinet who campaigned on this issue and then RENEGED are not fit to govern.

[scottiejohn]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If it’s not in the manifesto and was not announced as a policy after the U-Turn it is not a Government policy, and hence cannot be a U-Turn.

 

 

What a convoluted idiotic and contradictory statement. 

 

When in a hole stop digging.

 

Starmer and his party lied their way into Government and having done so have now been found out to be the liars they always have been and as such they must face the consequences ASAP, especially before the OAP's start dying of poverty, hypothermia, worry etc!

 

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, mokwit said:

Lies and omissions, clearly.

A "quockerwodger".

 

Thank you, I shall remember that!

[mokwit]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If it’s not in the manifesto and was not announced as a policy after the U-Turn it is not a Government policy, and hence cannot be a U-Turn.

 

 

You are the only one who thinks this, but really it is tactics isn't it? try and insert a definition favourable to you into the discussion and then try and hold the discussion to the terms you have created.

 

I reiterate, whether of not it can be defined as a U Turn is irrelevant, it is quite simple RENEGING on campaign promises.

 

You are not arguing convincingly here at all. In fact YOU DON"T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. You are just dishonestly trying to defend a bunch of people who told lies to get elected and then take money from the elderly to give it away to other countries.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

That's YOUR definition. You are trying to control the terms of the debate with this U turn definition tactic. I'm not falling for these Bolshevik language tactics.

 

It is about RENEGING  on promises very publicly made as part of campaigning. Nothing to do with whether or not it is a U turn, just quite simply promising something and then RENEGING. This is seemingly the definition of everyone except you. What part of this don't you understand?

 

Again if you are saying that they can promise anything and then just defend going back on that by not including it in a manifesto then that is not the conduct expected of politicians in the UK and hasn't been for centuries. Starmer and his cabinet who campaigned on this issue and then RENEGED are not fit to govern.

 

Because what, Government policies are announced by other means than in the Manifesto or by the elected Government after the election?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

 

I think that gets the thread’s Godwin Gong.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a convoluted idiotic and contradictory statement. 

 

When in a hole stop digging.

 

Starmer and his party lied their way into Government and having done so have now been found out to be the liars they always have been and as such they must face the consequences ASAP, especially before the OAP's start dying of poverty, hypothermia, worry etc!

 

Somebody else who doesn’t understand Government’s are elected on the basis of their manifesto.

[mokwit]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Because what, Government policies are announced by other means than in the Manifesto or by the elected Government after the election?

 

 

Well, why were they campaigning alongside the WASPI campaigners and saying they would support them? I think most reasonable people would assume that was their policy or WHY WERE THEY DOING IT? Just to make false promises to get elected it seems.

 

What you are saying is all that campaigning is not to be relied upon, they can seemingly annul their promises by not including them in the manifesto.

 

It is YOU and ONLY YOU who is clinging to this pathetic letter of the manifesto defence.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Well, why were they campaigning alongside the WASPI campaigners and saying they would support them? I think most reasonable people would assume that was their policy or WHY WERE THEY DOING IT? Just to make false promises to get elected it seems.

 

 

I suspect they wanted to hear the complaints these people have.

 

I don’t think they brought along the pre-printed placards we see in the photos.

 

 

 

 

[The Cyclist]

17 minutes ago, mokwit said:

That's YOUR definition.

 

16 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a convoluted idiotic and contradictory statement. 

 

 

Quote

Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with years of experience

 

Possibly penned by Mark Twain

 

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What was in the Manifesto on which Labour were elected?

 

 

 

Don't worry about it. It's all waffle - just like Starmer - no specifics or answers to real problems.

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suspect they wanted to hear the complaints these people have.

 

I don’t think they brought along the pre-printed placards we see in the photos.

 

 

 

 

 

So now you are saying they just went along on a fact finding mission? Rubbish and you know it. You really are scrabbling to defend these liars. They clearly went there and had their photo taken with the campaigners to show that they allied themselves with them.

 

They were trying to drum up support for themselves, certainly what Rayner said indicates that they were SUPPORTING not fact finding.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody else who doesn’t understand Government’s are elected on the basis of their manifesto.

 

Replace manifesto with lies and you've cracked it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, mokwit said:

 

So now you are saying they just went along on a fact finding mission? Rubbish and you know it. You really are scrabbling to defend these liars. They clearly went there and had their photo taken with the campaigners to show that they allied themselves with them.

 

They were trying to drum up support for themselves, certainly what Rayner said indicates that they were SUPPORTING not fact finding.

I have no idea, and neither do you.

[scottiejohn]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Don't worry about it. It's all waffle - just like Starmer - no specifics or answers to real problems.

No just lies since the day he entered Parliament and probably also before!