According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.
Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!
And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?
Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.
Puja
Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.
you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.
Did I say that?
I'm not saying he tried to be PM in order to get the next thing. But now that it looks like a dumpster fire he'll be looking to the next thing and making sure that happens, no matter the consequences.
I'm not sure how you can say he took the Labour leadership very seriously and yet, later in the same sentence, that he had no plan. Seems like a contradiction.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:58 pm
Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.
you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.
Did I say that?
I'm not saying he tried to be PM in order to get the next thing. But now that it looks like a dumpster fire he'll be looking to the next thing and making sure that happens, no matter the consequences.
I'm not sure how you can say he took the Labour leadership very seriously and yet, later in the same sentence, that he had no plan. Seems like a contradiction.
No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him,...is what you said. Apologies for misconstruing what you intended.
And he had and executed a plan to be labour leader, and then PM. He just didn't have one for when the latter happened.
According to the government's own statistics, there were zero (0) cases of fraud associated with PIP in 2024. There is no fat to be cut there, no waste to be found, nothing but cutting the already below-poverty-levels of support that we expect disabled people to survive on. This is abhorrent.
Even apart from the ethics of it, this is the same identical economic policy of austerity and cutting to growth that caused stagnation and decay for 14 years of the Conservatives. It didn't fail because the Tories didn't do it well enough, it failed because it's a fucking failure of an economic theory. I understand being an adherent to an economic belief, but how thick must you be to continue battering your head against the brick wall that is reality telling you that it doesn't actually work in the real world?!
And, actually, let's go back to ethics for a moment, cause Starmer's whole electoral programme was about "Vote for Change". Is this change, Keir? Cutting aid budgets, demonising immigrants and benefits claimants, claiming public agencies and the NHS must slash budgets to "cut waste" and "balance the books"? Is this fucking change?
Gods below and everburning, he hasn't even changed the corruption and scandals about favours for party donors.
Puja
Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.
you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.
I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.
Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:58 pm
Ethically, logically, any way you look at it, it makes no sense. It's just the best that a centrist manager with zero imagination and zero empathy can come up with. Not to worry though, Starmer only took a flyer at becoming PM. This is all a bonus to him. What he will make sure of is to line up a nice job for himself afterwards. Head of NATO? COO of the Tony Blair Institute? Head of the Vladimir Putin Centre for Democratic Studies? No matter, as long as the money and status accrues to him, he'll leave behind the shattered remnants of UK democracy (and the Labour Party ) without a thought.
you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.
I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.
Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.
Puja
I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.
I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.
you can't seriously think he's doing this for the money or some sort of post PM mega earnings??? Whatever you say about him, he's took the leadership of the Labour Party very seriously, and tilted at big windmills; the massive failure has been not really having any beliefs, therefore vision, therefore plan. Status maybe.
I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.
Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.
Puja
I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.
I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.
I understand "Power is the only thing that matters" as a philosophy when it's applied as a scold to ideological purists - there's definitely an argument that it's better to compromise some and be in enough power to enact some of your beliefs, than it is to stay pure and accomplish nothing. However, I don't understand power being the end goal. Surely you must want power in order to **do** something, even if it's just cheap bus fares?
I wouldn't accuse him of being avaricious, but I would say he's a person who has executed a campaign for the highest post in British politics simply in order to have it. He has said, and done, anything and everything, in order to run the country and it doesn't appear to be because he has any desires or beliefs that he wants to enact. He just wanted to be in charge and important.
Money is an important aspect of being important, as are the contacts and influence that come from being wealthy. So, while I wouldn't accuse him of lining up jobs in order to cash out, I have absolutely no faith that his leadership of the UK won't be conducted with half an eye to how it could get him to somewhere else that he wants to go, especially if the promised growth never happens and he's left with the potential of losing the next election.
Puja
I mostly agree, hence status comment and the rest of what I said. I'm not sure he's looking beyond the next 10 minutes tho. I totally agree that disappointingly its power for power's sake in the end, tho I suspect it wasn't that in the start.
I remember chatting to a very pissed Ken Livingstone once, and he said, power is the only thing that matters, in effect. His sole aim in getting elected- he said- was getting cheap bus fares in place. But he was pissed.
I understand "Power is the only thing that matters" as a philosophy when it's applied as a scold to ideological purists - there's definitely an argument that it's better to compromise some and be in enough power to enact some of your beliefs, than it is to stay pure and accomplish nothing. However, I don't understand power being the end goal. Surely you must want power in order to **do** something, even if it's just cheap bus fares?
Puja
indeed. We've just circled round to Starmer. He's got there and he doesn't appear to know why.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 4:15 pm
No doubt Labour's spineless failure to retaliate against US tariffs on metals will cause Trump to respect us. Yep, that'll work.
This is one area where I actually think Starmer's doing the right thing. Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled. He has no understanding of the concept of "being wrong" as he's been sheltered from any consequences for anything and his cult justify and agree with everything he says. Retaliatory tariffs are not going to do anything to change his behaviour - he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the damage they will cause to the US economy and everything suggests that he'll react to being challenged by doubling down and digging his heels in, just like any toddler who's told no. Our best chance of getting out from it is to flatter him and find something unimportant that we can offer him so that he can go away and parade that he's got "a deal".
Basically, I'm endorsing Starmer using gentle parenting on him. For all my criticisms of him, this is probably the task that Starmer's best suited for - speaking pleasing empty words, saying what someone wants to hear to get what he wants, without ever intending on delivering. He was made for this!
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 4:15 pm
No doubt Labour's spineless failure to retaliate against US tariffs on metals will cause Trump to respect us. Yep, that'll work.
This is one area where I actually think Starmer's doing the right thing. Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled. He has no understanding of the concept of "being wrong" as he's been sheltered from any consequences for anything and his cult justify and agree with everything he says. Retaliatory tariffs are not going to do anything to change his behaviour - he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the damage they will cause to the US economy and everything suggests that he'll react to being challenged by doubling down and digging his heels in, just like any toddler who's told no. Our best chance of getting out from it is to flatter him and find something unimportant that we can offer him so that he can go away and parade that he's got "a deal".
Basically, I'm endorsing Starmer using gentle parenting on him. For all my criticisms of him, this is probably the task that Starmer's best suited for - speaking pleasing empty words, saying what someone wants to hear to get what he wants, without ever intending on delivering. He was made for this!
Puja
Trump also has a thing for the British monarchy. Being flattered by a knight of the realm won’t hurt.
It’s sickening but also good diplomacy if we get what we want out of this.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 4:15 pm
No doubt Labour's spineless failure to retaliate against US tariffs on metals will cause Trump to respect us. Yep, that'll work.
This is one area where I actually think Starmer's doing the right thing. Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled. He has no understanding of the concept of "being wrong" as he's been sheltered from any consequences for anything and his cult justify and agree with everything he says. Retaliatory tariffs are not going to do anything to change his behaviour - he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the damage they will cause to the US economy and everything suggests that he'll react to being challenged by doubling down and digging his heels in, just like any toddler who's told no. Our best chance of getting out from it is to flatter him and find something unimportant that we can offer him so that he can go away and parade that he's got "a deal".
Basically, I'm endorsing Starmer using gentle parenting on him. For all my criticisms of him, this is probably the task that Starmer's best suited for - speaking pleasing empty words, saying what someone wants to hear to get what he wants, without ever intending on delivering. He was made for this!
Puja
Oh yeah, he does spinelessness like a natural, I agree with that.
I just don't think you can let someone get away with this. Don't have to be anything but painstakingly polite about it - and make it very clear in advance how it's nothing personal, just tariffs need to be returned. Nothing heavy but something as like-for-like as possible.
It's not like he's even demanding anything of us. Our trade is pretty balanced with the US. And we're not sending fentanyl or immigrants over the border, so what can we actually do?
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 4:15 pm
No doubt Labour's spineless failure to retaliate against US tariffs on metals will cause Trump to respect us. Yep, that'll work.
This is one area where I actually think Starmer's doing the right thing. Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled. He has no understanding of the concept of "being wrong" as he's been sheltered from any consequences for anything and his cult justify and agree with everything he says. Retaliatory tariffs are not going to do anything to change his behaviour - he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the damage they will cause to the US economy and everything suggests that he'll react to being challenged by doubling down and digging his heels in, just like any toddler who's told no. Our best chance of getting out from it is to flatter him and find something unimportant that we can offer him so that he can go away and parade that he's got "a deal".
Basically, I'm endorsing Starmer using gentle parenting on him. For all my criticisms of him, this is probably the task that Starmer's best suited for - speaking pleasing empty words, saying what someone wants to hear to get what he wants, without ever intending on delivering. He was made for this!
Puja
Oh yeah, he does spinelessness like a natural, I agree with that.
I just don't think you can let someone get away with this. Don't have to be anything but painstakingly polite about it - and make it very clear in advance how it's nothing personal, just tariffs need to be returned. Nothing heavy but something as like-for-like as possible.
It's not like he's even demanding anything of us. Our trade is pretty balanced with the US. And we're not sending fentanyl or immigrants over the border, so what can we actually do?
The problem is that he thinks he's owed getting away with this - there's no retaliation or punishment or consequences that will shake his opinion that he, and the US, are special and deserves special treatment. Even being polite and reasonable and even will be taken as being unfair.
Your last paragraph is the way in - emphasise that *of course* he's right to put tariffs on those awful Trump-hating freeloaders, but we're not the ones causing trouble and Britain loves Trump, so of course it's right to build our special relationship and have us be an exception. Emphasise how we're whoring out the king showing him respect and decorum through his Royal visit and that Charles is personally so sad that we can't have tariff-free trade.
This is, of course, assuming that our end goal is to have the tariffs removed asap. There is the other perspective of telling Trump to go fuck himself sideways and decouple ourselves from the falling Empire as gracefully as we can.
Puja wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:18 pm
Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled.
As a complete aside, I've seen people making the point that he's 'not just a narcissist - he's a solipsist', but I don't think this is right.
Solipsism is the philosophical position that the only thing that exists is oneself (or one's mind). Someone with solipsism syndrome (or words to that effect) feels like nothing outside of themselves is real. Now I get how this might be a more extreme condition than narcissism but I think it's pretty unlikely that Trump actually suffers from it (in general). He clearly thinks he is the only thing that really matters but it's also clear he does think the outside world exists (even if its primary purpose is to serve him).
Puja wrote: ↑Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:18 pm
Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled.
As a complete aside, I've seen people making the point that he's 'not just a narcissist - he's a solipsist', but I don't think this is right.
Solipsism is the philosophical position that the only thing that exists is oneself (or one's mind). Someone with solipsism syndrome (or words to that effect) feels like nothing outside of themselves is real. Now I get how this might be a more extreme condition than narcissism but I think it's pretty unlikely that Trump actually suffers from it (in general). He clearly thinks he is the only thing that really matters but it's also clear he does think the outside world exists (even if its primary purpose is to serve him).
Mmm, fair point. You're probably right that he's less likely to be actively solipsist then he is to be simply grotesquely lacking in empathy and stupefyingly selfish - knows full well that other people exist, just considers them utterly meaningless except in how they can benefit him.
This is one area where I actually think Starmer's doing the right thing. Trump is a petulant, self-centred, solipsist child with no attention span and a ridiculous ego, who has been completely spoiled. He has no understanding of the concept of "being wrong" as he's been sheltered from any consequences for anything and his cult justify and agree with everything he says. Retaliatory tariffs are not going to do anything to change his behaviour - he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the damage they will cause to the US economy and everything suggests that he'll react to being challenged by doubling down and digging his heels in, just like any toddler who's told no. Our best chance of getting out from it is to flatter him and find something unimportant that we can offer him so that he can go away and parade that he's got "a deal".
Basically, I'm endorsing Starmer using gentle parenting on him. For all my criticisms of him, this is probably the task that Starmer's best suited for - speaking pleasing empty words, saying what someone wants to hear to get what he wants, without ever intending on delivering. He was made for this!
Puja
Oh yeah, he does spinelessness like a natural, I agree with that.
I just don't think you can let someone get away with this. Don't have to be anything but painstakingly polite about it - and make it very clear in advance how it's nothing personal, just tariffs need to be returned. Nothing heavy but something as like-for-like as possible.
It's not like he's even demanding anything of us. Our trade is pretty balanced with the US. And we're not sending fentanyl or immigrants over the border, so what can we actually do?
The problem is that he thinks he's owed getting away with this - there's no retaliation or punishment or consequences that will shake his opinion that he, and the US, are special and deserves special treatment. Even being polite and reasonable and even will be taken as being unfair.
Your last paragraph is the way in - emphasise that *of course* he's right to put tariffs on those awful Trump-hating freeloaders, but we're not the ones causing trouble and Britain loves Trump, so of course it's right to build our special relationship and have us be an exception. Emphasise how we're whoring out the king showing him respect and decorum through his Royal visit and that Charles is personally so sad that we can't have tariff-free trade.
This is, of course, assuming that our end goal is to have the tariffs removed asap. There is the other perspective of telling Trump to go fuck himself sideways and decouple ourselves from the falling Empire as gracefully as we can.
Puja
Yeah, you guys could be right. Is he a toddler, is he a bully, has he any capacity to be influenced, what kind of person does he find influential? Is it better to show abject sycophancy or would the Brits get more respect showing a bit of spine? Who knows in the end? I'll stick with my view though, even if it is just a guess.
) without a thought.
