Keir Starmer

[WhenTattieFlooredChas]

Going back to the original topic (or not really). You can think Starmer is bland, ineffective, sh*te, but this Jenrick c*nt really takes the biscuit. This is petty c*ntery of the highest level.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66132158

[donsdaft]

Going back to the original topic (or not really). You can think Starmer is bland, ineffective, sh*te, but this Jenrick c*nt really takes the biscuit. This is petty c*ntery of the highest level.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66132158

I don't think there an be any argument about this.

It takes pettiness to a completely new level.

[InversneckieDob]

Perspectives are moulded by life-experiences. Don’t forget who’ll be paying your pension till the day you shuffle off your mortal coil. It’s nae funded you know, nor does it relate to what you’ve paid in - it’s the private sector that you should thank, a ponzi-scheme if you like. Do you have an appreciation of that, at all?

Wow.
Public Sector pay and pensions....you Daily Mail types love a bell cow.

[InversneckieDob]

They really ought to acquaint themselves with the teachings of the Guardian, fools!

I'll try to educate myself with a good old dose of Express/Mail/Sun teachings then.

[InversneckieDob]

I don’t rely on public transport nowadays to any extent, but it’s really awful in Shetland, from what I’m told, though we are not in the central-belt. What’s your perception of public utilities in terms of who pays for the lions share of water, drainage and associated charges relative to use? Do you have a clue!!

Maybe public transport would be better served by being taken out of private hands then?
Run as a service rather than as a profit making entity?

Your post thereafter just emphasises why there's no point in the likes of me and you engaging/arguing as it comes down to moral compass.
"Who pays for the lions (sic) share" is a morally irrelevant point.
Access to the utilities are, once more morally speaking, a right in my opinion.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" probably doesn't chime much with your sort.
"Relative to use" is a morally irrelevant point, well in terms of my moral compass.
Suffice to say, once more in terms of my moral compass, public utilities should be publicly run, not run for the benefit of private stakeholders/shareholders.
Your mileage/moral compass may vary.

[donsdaft]

Maybe public transport would be better served by being taken out of private hands then?
Run as a service rather than as a profit making entity?

Suffice to say, once more in terms of my moral compass, public utilities should be publicly run, not run for the benefit of private stakeholders/shareholders.

I agree, but remember, Maggie Thatcher happened for a reason.

[InversneckieDob]

Oh, for many reasons.
But the initial "happening " was followed by opportunism and spin-doctoring that led a compliant populace into the current abyss.

[donsdaft]

Aided and abetted by the appalling Blair government.

I now live in a city that is governed with the citizenry in mind.

The difference is so enormous that I have grave doubts that the UK is capable of pulling it back from the abyss.

There is always the option of staying and fighting the good fight, but fück that, I’m out.

[57vintage]

It’s all moot as far as I’m concerned, given that I’ve been informed that my generation (which, apart from The Who’s 1965 hit, I have no insight) should not be allowed to vote since ‘we’ stole the private housing, were given mortgages practically free, are pension millionaires, caused capitalism’s meltdown in 2008, and probably killed Bambi.

Given that there’s sweet fûck all deserving of my cross in an election from the choices floated thus far, it matters fewer fùcks to me day after day.

[donsdaft]

Those free mortgages were bloody handy.

A nice stress free existence for us all, followed by the retirement at 55 that we were all promised.