Categories
The HGV driver shortage: 2 in 3 blame ministers, Brexit and BoJo – politicalbetting.com
The HGV driver shortage: 2 in 3 blame ministers, Brexit and BoJo – politicalbetting.com
Interesting polling from Opinium on who/what is to blame for the ongoing situation. Clearly everything is in the context of the pandemic which gets the most blame – but it is not that far ahead of the government, Brexit and Johnson.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Which is why Boris has created a solution that seems to fix all the issues while not solving a single one of them and should allow the blame to be correctly laid back at the feet of the haulage industry (and the customers that pushed profits to the floor).
I note that these questions don't seem to have the industry as the answer which is a pity as that's 90% of the real issue.
How did Labour end up with such a shallow pool of frauds to pick from?
https://youtu.be/zgPF5xtppTs
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
"Come here you C***" to a mate in the pub works
"Come here you Scum", I don't think does
The shortage of lorry drivers could be a trap for the left/remainers/liberals. Plenty of non- university educated people will be pleased to see lorry drivers able to earn high salaries.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
See the complete flop of the 'clap for a nurses pay rise' campaign this year as an example.
Though in the case of fuel tanker drivers their pay must be a microscopic element in the overall price.
She recoiled in shock and disbelief and then asked who is she
I told her the deputy leader of the labour party and she said surely not
Unlike myself, my wife has little interest in politics but this was so unacceptable to her
I expect my wife is no different to a large number of the population
DavidL said:
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior. The evidence against this would make the most devout Franciscan monk quail and ask for help with his disbelief but it does not trouble people like her.
She genuinely believes that their policies show that they care more. Not more efficient or necessarily producing the most utilitarian outcome but more caring and that makes them better than those who do not support these policies for technical reasons like they don't work, they achieve the opposite of what they are designed to accomplish or they condemn the poor souls being "cared" for to a life of endless misery.
Tactically, this is a very good position for those who have aspirations to lead the party. This belief is widespread amongst the membership. It is why Labour in Scotland still fight with and rant against the Tories when they are being wiped out by the SNP. It's why thick anti-Semites like Corbyn win the leadership, twice. It may work for her too.
Of course, it completely repels people like me who are socially liberal, concerned about inequality and have no doubt that the harshness of the market needs tempering and management. It reminds me all too vividly of church goers so brilliantly lampooned in Holy Willie's Prayer 200 years ago. I am not looking for moral self satisfaction, I am looking for policies that are both deliverable and will genuinely help. I am not seeing them.
You will never see them from the Tories either David, two cheeks of the same morally superior arse. Unfortunate that the SNP have decided to model themselves on this flawed model nowadays as well. The scum truly has risen to the top.
To everyone that panicked and went to fuel their cars when it wasn’t needed, well done👍🏻 on shift on an emergency ambulance, low on fuel and struggling to find somewhere that isn’t sold out😡 https://twitter.com/beckylouh11/status/1441393455406751744/photo/1
Colleague has no #petrol to get to work tomorrow
(Senior partner in GP surgery where we see patients face to face & she’s doing flu clinic & has a whole nursing home to look after).
What say you @grantshapps ?
Is petrol for critical workers protected?
#PetrolShortages
https://twitter.com/Dr_Ellie/status/1442075789114159106
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1442077772747141128?s=20
On Friday the issue wasn't lack of fuel in petrol stations, it was shortage of HGV drivers.
Only from about 1pm yesterday would be people be thinking about fuel shortages.
Either way the question misses out the biggest reasons for the mess which does make me wonder about the survey...
That question is like asking who is to blame for Facebook abusing the information that have collected on you.
and I reckon you'll post all of of them on here at least once!
If you look at his policies during the pandemic in terms of furlough, the additional UC, the grants, the bounce back loans, etc, he has been extraordinarily centrist in his approach, bordering on leftish. If you look at his approach to climate change and the work that is now being put into COP26 I think that is genuinely admirable. If you look at his willingness to increase taxes, despite the views of many of his natural supporters, when the State needs to do more and needs more resource he is again bordering on what we have traditionally called left wing.
I personally have no problems with any of this. I can see that it upsets many natural Tory supporters such as @Philip_Thompson and @MaxPB but I think he is governing from the dead centre of public opinion on all these matters.
Same for anyone who absolutely depends on their car, idiot that does not make sure they get that low.
Then they see how people like Rayner conduct themselves and quite reasonably conclude 'No thanks'.
He has no morals.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
I could call a very close male friend a ‘bastard’, ‘a daft c***’, a ‘mad motherfucker’ and it would all be fine. They’d say it back. No worries
Yet some words remain taboo. I couldn’t - and wouldn’t - use the c word of or with a female friend.
I wouldn’t call any friend ‘a shit’. It’s just an insult. Which is why it was a brilliant choice for Alan Partridge
Scum is like shit, as it were (and my apologies to anyone reading that unpleasant sentence of a Sunday morning). It’s a slightly unusual word to use to a fellow human being, it is definitely insulting, hard to see as bantering, and Rayner has made it all worse by saying it is amiable slang where she comes from, thus patronising her fellow working class northerners en masse
The Labour Party is not fit for purpose. Disband it and start again
It’s pitifully bad politics. From her
I filled up yesterday, as car was empty after journey back. No problem at all. If you have no car round here, you are stuffed.
I see that Starmer still hasn't developed a spine or any common-sense. Oh well.
It doesn't work if your argument is along the lines of, "if you wanted Good Things you shouldn't have voted for scum you stupid twits."
Not only would she fail to win back a single RedWall seat from the Tories and probably lose a few more to the Tories too, she would also lose some upper middle class Labour Remain seats like Hampstead and Kilburn to the LDs
Repeating myself obviously, but JP mixes the coarseness of a Corbynite with the acceptability of a Blairite better than anyone else in Labour to me
As many an election has shown it is possible Party A will attack someone from Party B because they think that person is a threat to them. But quite often they attack them because they think they deserve to be attacked and that's that.
Personally I think Rayner has something about her that could work very well for Labour, and her 'scum' stuff is just showboating and not hugely consequential, but I don't know why the 'they are worried' trope survives - do we not remember it being used for Corbyn? No doubt Hague and IDS fans used to pull it out.
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The trouble is, only about 20% of the country (at most) shares this loathing. Most Brits don’t differentiate by class to anything like the same degree. They look at the Tories and see greedy liars, but they look at Labour and see greedy liars who preach.
They don't need balls; they need a prick.
Hmmmm.
Traffic Light
Jamaica
Kenya
Germany
Red Red Green
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58690645
Rayner May be driven by a class hatred but many working class people, certainly those I know, aren’t. They just want a better life and better life chances. Calling Tories scum is school playground stuff.
Rayner is campaigning to be leader of the Labour party not PM. Once she's unseated Max Fuckroom she can pivot to more weighty matters such as pretending to give a fuck at a the Cenotaph, etc. with Kate Middleton grade fake sincerity.
That it allows an easy distraction is why I find stunts about saying unparliamentary things in the Commons so irritating. Here it may have been a tactical error, who knows (it is conference week, it surely makes her look good there), and it's only the phoney roll back that I find inexplicable.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Having said that, I think the beneficiaries will be the LDs. Labour are so useless at the moment, they’re incapable of taking advantage.
For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.
Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.
I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.
And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
I don't think the point needs to be belaboured, so I'll just content myself by saying I don't see how having a baby, unmarried or not, confers immorality on someone, and certainly does not confer disadvantages on their governing ability. Calling a pregnant teenager scum says more about the person saying it than the teenager.
My mum gave birth at 18 but you'll be glad to know she did get married before then.
(I put the 'your' in for laffs)
Your views belong in the 19th century
Not that it was worth a prawn sandwich before, mind.