FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > George Galloway arrived and then . . .
George Galloway arrived and then . . .
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *atEvolution OP Couple 33 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
. . . well absolutely nothing that I can see.
Everyone ran around like headless chickens, spouting this doom and gloom prediction . . . and . . ?
George? Maybe you could tell us what happens next? It has actually been such an anti-climax that I thought my batteries had run flat !!!
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 33 weeks ago
|
It's not about Gallowway, it's because he's not Red, Blue, Green, Yellow Labour. You'll see the same DOOM and gloom when popular indepenants gain traction. Can't have the party system changed can we? It's kept the plebs tricked into thinking they have a say for 100 years or so since they could vote. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolution OP Couple 33 weeks ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke |
Independents rarely change anything in the status quo. Most usually they run a populist front because they have thrown a strop in their own mainstream party and realized that they actually haven't amounted to much and wield no power to change anything anyway. Being an independent reinforces that fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 33 weeks ago
|
"Independents rarely change anything in the status quo. Most usually they run a populist front because they have thrown a strop in their own mainstream party and realized that they actually haven't amounted to much and wield no power to change anything anyway. Being an independent reinforces that fact."
True, but imagine if most MPs were independant...Imagine how hung parliament would be then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 33 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Independents rarely change anything in the status quo. Most usually they run a populist front because they have thrown a strop in their own mainstream party and realized that they actually haven't amounted to much and wield no power to change anything anyway. Being an independent reinforces that fact.
True, but imagine if most MPs were independant...Imagine how hung parliament would be then."
Are you saying Independent MPs have big cocks? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in."
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?"
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 32 weeks ago
|
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics "
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 32 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
"
He will not be elected at the GE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE."
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 32 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country."
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country.
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
"
I don’t think Galloway is left wing, I think he’s an opportunist, like Derek Hatton in the 80s. He sees a hook and he goes big time on it. I firmly believe his admiration for Saddam Hussein, and currently for Putin, is genuine. He’d be a dictator in an instant if he could be.
As for Sunak he is just a very rich man with no understanding or respect for people who aren’t also rich. The contempt he displays for people, especially when challenged, is quite the tell.
Both of them assume they are superior, the difference is money. I firmly expect to see Sunak sucking up to autocratic regimes once he is kicked out of number 10, just like Cameron and Blair before him.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 32 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country.
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
I don’t think Galloway is left wing, I think he’s an opportunist, like Derek Hatton in the 80s. He sees a hook and he goes big time on it. I firmly believe his admiration for Saddam Hussein, and currently for Putin, is genuine. He’d be a dictator in an instant if he could be.
As for Sunak he is just a very rich man with no understanding or respect for people who aren’t also rich. The contempt he displays for people, especially when challenged, is quite the tell.
Both of them assume they are superior, the difference is money. I firmly expect to see Sunak sucking up to autocratic regimes once he is kicked out of number 10, just like Cameron and Blair before him.
"
Sunak will be sunning himself in the States as soon as this gig is over, that’s where the money is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country.
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
I don’t think Galloway is left wing, I think he’s an opportunist, like Derek Hatton in the 80s. He sees a hook and he goes big time on it. I firmly believe his admiration for Saddam Hussein, and currently for Putin, is genuine. He’d be a dictator in an instant if he could be.
As for Sunak he is just a very rich man with no understanding or respect for people who aren’t also rich. The contempt he displays for people, especially when challenged, is quite the tell.
Both of them assume they are superior, the difference is money. I firmly expect to see Sunak sucking up to autocratic regimes once he is kicked out of number 10, just like Cameron and Blair before him.
Sunak will be sunning himself in the States as soon as this gig is over, that’s where the money is"
Yeah, on reflection you’re right, he’s got wealth beyond what Blair and Cameron can dream of.
The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
And out he went, as quick as he came in.. I'm not sure he actually turned up for the announcement that he had lost to labour, such was his commitment.
Those tectonic plates must have moved again
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And out he went, as quick as he came in.. I'm not sure he actually turned up for the announcement that he had lost to labour, such was his commitment.
Those tectonic plates must have moved again
"
Said he wouldn't get elected, like a certain Mr Farage old George boy will find another wagon to attach his snake oil sellers banner to.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And out he went, as quick as he came in.. I'm not sure he actually turned up for the announcement that he had lost to labour, such was his commitment.
Those tectonic plates must have moved again
"
There were quite a lot of Reform candidates who did similar, I believe there are some journalists doing some digging into who these ‘phantom’ candidates actually are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country.
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
I don’t think Galloway is left wing, I think he’s an opportunist, like Derek Hatton in the 80s. He sees a hook and he goes big time on it. I firmly believe his admiration for Saddam Hussein, and currently for Putin, is genuine. He’d be a dictator in an instant if he could be.
As for Sunak he is just a very rich man with no understanding or respect for people who aren’t also rich. The contempt he displays for people, especially when challenged, is quite the tell.
Both of them assume they are superior, the difference is money. I firmly expect to see Sunak sucking up to autocratic regimes once he is kicked out of number 10, just like Cameron and Blair before him.
Sunak will be sunning himself in the States as soon as this gig is over, that’s where the money is
Yeah, on reflection you’re right, he’s got wealth beyond what Blair and Cameron can dream of.
The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better."
On what grounds ? Jealousy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Was the same during the Iraq war when he stood here in Tower Hamlets -- all talk about foreign policy, and nothing for the community who voted him in.
So he only spoke out about foreign policy and they still voted for him, they must have agreed with him then don’t you think?
To understand the reasons for this, you should learn of the demographics
George Galloway has something which Rishi Sunak will never have. A democratic mandate from the people
He will not be elected at the GE.
There’s a pretty good chance Rishi Sunak won’t either, both losing would be a massive positive for the country.
I agree it will be good for the country and more importantly Rochdale, when the fanatical left wing militant loses his seat, I assume that is what you meant?
Galloway has his admirers, the type of which are the polar opposite of me and my beliefs, so I won’t be shedding a tear when I see his mercenary backside skulking in the shadows where it belongs.
I don’t think Galloway is left wing, I think he’s an opportunist, like Derek Hatton in the 80s. He sees a hook and he goes big time on it. I firmly believe his admiration for Saddam Hussein, and currently for Putin, is genuine. He’d be a dictator in an instant if he could be.
As for Sunak he is just a very rich man with no understanding or respect for people who aren’t also rich. The contempt he displays for people, especially when challenged, is quite the tell.
Both of them assume they are superior, the difference is money. I firmly expect to see Sunak sucking up to autocratic regimes once he is kicked out of number 10, just like Cameron and Blair before him.
Sunak will be sunning himself in the States as soon as this gig is over, that’s where the money is
Yeah, on reflection you’re right, he’s got wealth beyond what Blair and Cameron can dream of.
The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?"
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better."
"On what grounds ? Jealousy?"
"Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population."
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?"
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?"
That in no way is a large salary these days especially with the price of property |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better."
"On what grounds ? Jealousy?"
"Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population."
"Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?"
"Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?"
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like."
I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark, it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on. Just to be clear, I don’t blame the super rich for not knowing, there’s no reason they should, I just don’t think it makes for a leader who will look after the poorest and most vulnerable, and they are the people who need most help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like.
I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark, it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on. Just to be clear, I don’t blame the super rich for not knowing, there’s no reason they should, I just don’t think it makes for a leader who will look after the poorest and most vulnerable, and they are the people who need most help."
May I jump in?
1. Surely it depends in the individual, their EI, their background, and their general attitude?
2. I think it is hard for someone born rich to properly understand what it is like to be poor. That is not their fault nor does it make them a bad person (in most cases).
3. I’d like to think there are plenty of rich people who do try and help others.
4. How can you say “I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like”? If someone said the reverse of that it would cause outrage! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like.
I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark, it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on. Just to be clear, I don’t blame the super rich for not knowing, there’s no reason they should, I just don’t think it makes for a leader who will look after the poorest and most vulnerable, and they are the people who need most help.
May I jump in?
1. Surely it depends in the individual, their EI, their background, and their general attitude?
2. I think it is hard for someone born rich to properly understand what it is like to be poor. That is not their fault nor does it make them a bad person (in most cases).
3. I’d like to think there are plenty of rich people who do try and help others.
4. How can you say “I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like”? If someone said the reverse of that it would cause outrage!"
1. To a certain extent I think you are correct but I don’t think super rich people get to be super rich by prioritising the needs of others. There’s plenty of research out there to show that the richer a person becomes, the less empathy they are likely to show.
2. I didn’t say I thought it made them a person, just not the person to lead a country where at least 40% of the population would be unable to pay their bills if the next paycheque didn’t come in.
3. There undoubtedly are but helping others and running a country full of people whose lives you cannot comprehend are different things.
4. It’s a personal opinion, and if a super rich person said the same about a poor person I would completely understand that. When that video appeared of a young Rishi Sunak saying he had no working class friends I was in no way surprised, and had he not been in charge of the country it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest.
Again, I’m not saying super rich people are bad people, they just aren’t suited to governing a country in which the vast majority of people are incredibly poor in comparison. Just like I’d be no good at running a society of super rich people, because I just wouldn’t understand their lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country."
How do you think that statement is any different to someone saying "I don’t think there will ever be a black person who I like"? You can dress it up with all sorts of "I don't think they'll have a personality I can get on with", but it's still just prejudice.
"The UK is a relatively poor country ..."
Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country.
"... it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on."
Should it? Should we ignore the needs of disabled people because they're just a small minority? Do we not bother about gay rights because they're just a minority? Or should the government be looking to improve the lives of everyone, including rich people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
How do you think that statement is any different to someone saying "I don’t think there will ever be a black person who I like"? You can dress it up with all sorts of "I don't think they'll have a personality I can get on with", but it's still just prejudice. "
Black people cannot choose not to be black, it is an immutable characteristic, wealth is not.
" The UK is a relatively poor country ...
Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country. "
You only quoted part of what I said, try again.
" ... it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on.
Should it? Should we ignore the needs of disabled people because they're just a small minority? Do we not bother about gay rights because they're just a minority? Or should the government be looking to improve the lives of everyone, including rich people."
You’ve ignored the where I have said the government should be focused on helping the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like.
I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark, it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on. Just to be clear, I don’t blame the super rich for not knowing, there’s no reason they should, I just don’t think it makes for a leader who will look after the poorest and most vulnerable, and they are the people who need most help."
Would you consider your opinion of super rich people to be bigoted?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country."
"How do you think that statement is any different to someone saying "I don’t think there will ever be a black person who I like"? You can dress it up with all sorts of "I don't think they'll have a personality I can get on with", but it's still just prejudice."
"Black people cannot choose not to be black, it is an immutable characteristic, wealth is not."
True, but not relevant.
You are saying that an entire group of people are all the same, and that you dislike all of them for what they are. That's the same thinking that underlies racism.
"The UK is a relatively poor country ..."
"Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country."
"You only quoted part of what I said, try again."
OK, here we go. You said "The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark".
Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
How do you think that statement is any different to someone saying "I don’t think there will ever be a black person who I like"? You can dress it up with all sorts of "I don't think they'll have a personality I can get on with", but it's still just prejudice.
Black people cannot choose not to be black, it is an immutable characteristic, wealth is not.
True, but not relevant.
You are saying that an entire group of people are all the same, and that you dislike all of them for what they are. That's the same thinking that underlies racism."
Except it's not. Racism is based on an immutable characteristic. Being super rich is not immutable. I have given reasons for why I think super rich people are not the best people to run the country, these reasons are backed up by studies. (Scientific American: How Wealth Reduces Compassion)
Please find me a study that says black people are unsuitable for a job because they are black, and we will talk about how my view is akin to racism.
Also, I didn't say I dislike all super rich people, I said I'm unlikely to meet a super rich person I like, there's a very obvious difference.
"The UK is a relatively poor country ...
Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country.
You only quoted part of what I said, try again.
OK, here we go. You said "The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark".
Relative to what? Globally the UK is an extremely rich country."
Our economy is one of the largest in the world but the top 1% of wealthiest people own £2.8 Trillion of wealth and the bottom 70% own £2.4 Trillion. Our national wealth is very unequally distributed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You are saying that an entire group of people are all the same, and that you dislike all of them for what they are. That's the same thinking that underlies racism."
"Except it's not. Racism is based on an immutable characteristic. Being super rich is not immutable..."
The mutability isn't important. What's important is that you are tarring an entire group with the same brush, and choosing to dislike all members of that group, regardless of their individual merits.
"Also, I didn't say I dislike all super rich people, I said I'm unlikely to meet a super rich person I like, there's a very obvious difference."
There would be, if you'd said that. What you said was "I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like". You said nothing about meeting them, you just said that you don't like an entire group of people, based on who they are.
But why am I bothering? You'll just try to shift the goalposts again, and try to wriggle out of what you said.
It's clear that you have set opinions, and that you can't see how bigoted you really are. I'll leave you to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!"
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now. "
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite” "
That's not the reason for ruling her out though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though "
Yeah but didn’t she have an embryonic property empire at one point  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Yeah but didn’t she have an embryonic property empire at one point "
Nah. She owned a home and married someone who also owned a home.
Anyway, that's still not the reason to rule her out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though "
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch "
If I get up and kick the shit out of her, I won't have to go to prison will I? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit"
Really think it is about time you told us how you honestly feel about Labour. I feel like you have been holding back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The sooner we are rid of the super rich in government the better.
On what grounds ? Jealousy?
Their inability to comprehend the lives of the vast majority of the population.
Should we also be excluding poor people from government, on the grounds that they are unable to comprehend the amount of money it takes to run the country?
Do you consider someone on £90k pa plus expenses to be poor?
No. Nor do I consider them experienced with large budgets if they were previously unemployed and have just become an MP.
But that isn't relevant. My point was that your logic for excluding rich people could equally be turned round to exclude poor people, or indeed any group of people you choose. It's a bad argument for getting rid of some people that you don't like.
I don’t think there will ever be a super rich person who I like but that’s not why I don’t think the super rich should run the country.
The UK is a relatively poor country with a few incredibly rich people living in it. The modal salary in the UK is thought to be somewhere around the £23k-£25k mark, it is simply not possible for the super rich to appreciate life for the majority of people, and the majority of people is who the government should be focusing on. Just to be clear, I don’t blame the super rich for not knowing, there’s no reason they should, I just don’t think it makes for a leader who will look after the poorest and most vulnerable, and they are the people who need most help.
Would you consider your opinion of super rich people to be bigoted?
"
She won't but it is... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch
If I get up and kick the shit out of her, I won't have to go to prison will I? "
nobody gets up from a Rayner grimace and hook, unheard of.
You should see how red in the face Starmer gets when she puts him in headlock and gives his head a knuckle rub, every meeting ends the same way |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch
If I get up and kick the shit out of her, I won't have to go to prison will I?
nobody gets up from a Rayner grimace and hook, unheard of.
You should see how red in the face Starmer gets when she puts him in headlock and gives his head a knuckle rub, every meeting ends the same way"
Fuck. Is it on phub? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 19 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch
If I get up and kick the shit out of her, I won't have to go to prison will I?
nobody gets up from a Rayner grimace and hook, unheard of.
You should see how red in the face Starmer gets when she puts him in headlock and gives his head a knuckle rub, every meeting ends the same way
Fuck. Is it on phub?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now.
In the words of a wise fab sage “Angela Rayner is a gobshite”
That's not the reason for ruling her out though
Rayner would knock you clean out if she heard you say she was ruled out of the PM role, one punch
If I get up and kick the shit out of her, I won't have to go to prison will I?
nobody gets up from a Rayner grimace and hook, unheard of.
You should see how red in the face Starmer gets when she puts him in headlock and gives his head a knuckle rub, every meeting ends the same way
Fuck. Is it on phub? "
And Johnson couldn’t handle all the upskirting from across the chamber! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This idea that a super rich person should not be PM is interesting. I get it. Sort of. I understand the idea/concept that to truly represent people you need to understand them. Ergo if the majority of people in the country are at the poorer end of the scale, then should the PM be like them?
But how does that take account of successful (financially) self made people? What about university educated vs no higher education? What about upper middle class/white collar? Where do we draw the line on how rich is too rich? Afterall, the PM’s salary is hugely higher than the national average and even more so in comparison to more deprived areas of the UK!
We've ruled out the last 20 PM's if we say you can't be PM if you can't truly understand people.
As someone else said, 'poor people' wouldn't be able to understand millionaires, so they should be allowed to be PM either as we've plenty of millionaires in the UK. Let's rule out Angela Rayner right now. "
What happened to having the right person for the job regardless of background and wealth. Personally I don't care if those in charge have little or lots of wealth. I just want them to be good at their job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit
Really think it is about time you told us how you honestly feel about Labour. I feel like you have been holding back "
I hate them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 19 weeks ago
Brighton |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit
Really think it is about time you told us how you honestly feel about Labour. I feel like you have been holding back I hate them "
They speak highly of you though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit"
How would Farage make money from putting labour in check?
He does cause chaos and havoc, you're right. Not what we need in parliament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit
How would Farage make money from putting labour in check?
He does cause chaos and havoc, you're right. Not what we need in parliament. "
With Labour having a large majority that they have we need someone with a big personality and character to put them in check and I don't see that happening from the Lim Dems, Green Party, SNP and quite frankly the Tories. So any trouble Farage causes to Labour is welcomed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No worries we got Nigel Farage to put the Labour in check and cause chaos and havoc if he as to as I dont trust Labour one single bit
How would Farage make money from putting labour in check?
He does cause chaos and havoc, you're right. Not what we need in parliament. With Labour having a large majority that they have we need someone with a big personality and character to put them in check and I don't see that happening from the Lim Dems, Green Party, SNP and quite frankly the Tories. So any trouble Farage causes to Labour is welcomed"
You're almost right, but Farage banging on endlessly about immigrants, and spending all his time trying to stay just a micron on the side of not-quite-fully-racist with his comments. Isn't what we need.
What we do need is a grown up opposition, that holds the government to account, makes sure any bullshit and any broken promises are called out. And for someone to grill the PM at PMQs. A dead fish would be more appropriate than Farage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is the most influential politician in a generation..."
"For people who are easily conned."
Whether you like him, or loathe him, you can't deny that he almost single-handedly pulled the UK out of the EU. If that doesn't count as 'influential', I don't know what does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is the most influential politician in a generation...
For people who are easily conned.
Whether you like him, or loathe him, you can't deny that he almost single-handedly pulled the UK out of the EU. If that doesn't count as 'influential', I don't know what does."
He didn't single handedly. He played a bit part for sure. He did the dirty work that Cameron's Tory party weren't prepared to do to bring along certain elements of the electorate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is the most influential politician in a generation...
For people who are easily conned.
Whether you like him, or loathe him, you can't deny that he almost single-handedly pulled the UK out of the EU. If that doesn't count as 'influential', I don't know what does.
He didn't single handedly. He played a bit part for sure. He did the dirty work that Cameron's Tory party weren't prepared to do to bring along certain elements of the electorate. "
*Big part. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is the most influential politician in a generation...
For people who are easily conned.
Whether you like him, or loathe him, you can't deny that he almost single-handedly pulled the UK out of the EU. If that doesn't count as 'influential', I don't know what does."
This.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He didn't single handedly. He played a bit part for sure. He did the dirty work that Cameron's Tory party weren't prepared to do to bring along certain elements of the electorate."
"*Big part."
Heh heh. That's quite a spelling error. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
Rishi and Starmer two cheeks of the same back side 