An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

MaizieD. I find your comment regarding wealth, empathy and understanding rather rude.

I can only assume that if you know any wealthy people they are not very nice.

Those that I know are empathetic, work/volunteer with charities here and abroad with no need to shout about their wealth or their philanthropy.

But hey ho, go ahead and pigeonhole a section of society with your prejudices.

The last “good times” were 2002 to 2007 everything was improving nicely, greed was allowed to take over due to deregulation. Most of us took advantage it, but it couldn't last, the damage was massive, we were gradually improving when Brexit came along ———- we know the rest.

Your thread has lasted longer than you expected, WWM2, as there is always plenty to say about this Government. MaizieD, has summed it up nicely in her latest posts.
Yes,Joseann, the offshore accounts are 'very dubious'. Some say they are the actual motivation behind BREXIT.

The spate of calling other posters "rude" is both Victorian in view and a personal attack, which seems to me to be outside for Gransnet Talk Guidelines.

By all means explain what you don't like/disagree with in a post, but please stop this petty name calling - especially when it comes without explanation. I'm still waiting for one where someone thought it right to name call in this way. It should be about the content of the post, not the person.

DaisyAnneReturns

The spate of calling other posters "rude" is both Victorian in view and a personal attack, which seems to me to be outside for Gransnet Talk Guidelines.

By all means explain what you don't like/disagree with in a post, but please stop this petty name calling - especially when it comes without explanation. I'm still waiting for one where someone thought it right to name call in this way. It should be about the content of the post, not the person.

If ? You are referring to my post this morning, I suggest you reread it.

I called MaizieD’s comments rude not her.

I still await your definition of ‘wealth’, Maizie.

And the government hasn’t demonised lawyers doing their jobs - it has spoken out against those who fabricate stories for clients. We have recently seen several such firms closed down and you may be sure that more will follow.

That's still personal as a post cannot, by itself, set out to be "rude". Equally I can see nothing in the original comment that is impolite or bad mannered towards another poster. So how is the poster's comment rude.

All you need to do is explain what you disagree with in the comment made.

This was not meant as an attack on you or your post but the word has been used in quick succession to a previous post which is still not been explained.

My last post was to GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

To post that wealthy people have no empathy or understanding with those who are poor is in my opinion a rude slur on wealthy individuals.

I stand by my post.

Germanshepherdsmum

I still await your definition of ‘wealth’, Maizie.

And the government hasn’t demonised lawyers doing their jobs - it has spoken out against those who fabricate stories for clients. We have recently seen several such firms closed down and you may be sure that more will follow.

I am quite sure you are aware that those who fabricate stories have not declared their political views. They could, just as easily be right wing lawyers after a "quick buck". In fact, the experience of many would tell them that that is the likely case.

Equally I'm sure you're aware, that the attack on people who are trying to stop the government breaking the law, is a perfectly reasonable course for those lawyers to take. It has nothing to do with "fabricated stories".

The pathetic and childish language Conservatives use, is for one reason and one reason only. That is to set up another group who are othered. Attempting to destroy our judiciary and legal services is anti-democratic in the extreme.

they have done nothing apart from sitting on their back sides telling us what we should or should not be doing while the rich get richer and the poor get poorer one thing they did was the triple lock on state pensions but mine has already been swallowed up by rent and council tax increases my savings pay the rest of the bills and for my food so when my savings run out i will be joining the homeless

DaisyAnneReturns there is a fair amount of othering by those who are not/have not voted Conservative/s

Are you unaware of the law firms which have been closed down because their lawyers were fabricating stories to back asylum claims DAR? The political views of the lawyers concerned are irrelevant.

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

To post that wealthy people have no empathy or understanding with those who are poor is in my opinion a rude slur on wealthy individuals.

I stand by my post.

I understand that you do not agree with the post. It is how you disagree thst is the problem.

What Maizie actually said was "I think it's because our current PM seems to be completely divorced from the reality of the lives of a huge section of the electorate, and others have been so in the past."

What on earth is "rude" about that? He is. They were.

You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

Germanshepherdsmum

Are you unaware of the law firms which have been closed down because their lawyers were fabricating stories to back asylum claims DAR? The political views of the lawyers concerned are irrelevant.

The political views of the lawyers concerned are irrelevant.

Which is what I said. You were the person who pulled in the idea that this was connected to the fabrication of stories, not me. However, I am not the only one complaining about the "lefty lawer" innuendo.

Two former Conservative law officers have criticised the political rhetoric against “lefty lawyers” as damaging and wrong as the head of the Law Society warned it could lead to physical attacks on immigration solicitors.

Also, the attempt at "othering" is fact:

Senior Conservative politicians from Rishi Sunak to the party deputy chair, Lee Anderson, have blamed “lefty lawyers” for thwarting the government’s policies to prevent people crossing the Channel in small boats.

You seemed to be trying to reinforce this rather underhand attack.

(Source: The Guardian: Fri 11 Aug 2023 19.25)

GrannyGravy13

^You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly^. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

I'm sorry, GG13, but to defend 'the wealthy' by talking of their philanthropy and good works is quite sad, really.

We wouldn't need their philanthropy and good works if wealth were more evenly distributed.

In our political economy money is continually sucked upwards into the hands of the already wealthy and what little the poorer people get passes through their hands at top speed as they pay out for the very basics of life. They have no chance at all to accumulate anything.

GrannyGravy13

^You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly^. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.

Sorry MaizieD I am so fed up with the wealthy being lumped together as one and the same bad barrel of apples

How do you define wealthy?

Are you talking about billionaires or millionaires?

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently…

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.

DaisyAnneReturns

The only attack on a poster is unfortunately coming from you.

There are lots of people on here that I do not agree with, but I do not go at them like a ^ terrier after it’s prey^. which is what you are currently doing to me!

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently

Don't worry, GG13, I'm not after your hard earned £s.

I've said before, I'm not in favour of a communist style confiscation of wealth. I'm more in favour of preventing an accumulation of excessive wealth. And distributing money around more fairly...

GrannyGravy13

Sorry MaizieD I am so fed up with the wealthy being lumped together as one and the same bad barrel of apples

How do you define wealthy?

Are you talking about billionaires or millionaires?

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently…

You have no idea about other posters- who they are, who they are related to, who their friends are. Multi millionaires and billionaires, private jets and yachts and so much more. Very nice people, and generous and empathy in some circumstances- but at the end of the day, hard as nails when it comes to paying a bit more tax to help the less fortunate.

NO, there is nothing wrong at all with having some £s in the bank- at all. Not on GN, not ever. Nothing wrong in using private edu and private healthcare either - as long as it is not to the detriment of those less fortunate, and as long as you don't expect to be subsidised by others who don't have that choice- knowing that you have the choice, and never mind about those who don't ...

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.

DaisyAnneReturns

The only attack on a poster is unfortunately coming from you.

There are lots of people on here that I do not agree with, but I do not go at them like a ^ terrier after it’s prey^. which is what you are currently doing to me!

Well that is bl**dy and extremely rude- coming from someone who dishes personal attacks so regularly!

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

No, never, GrannyGravy. I may not always agree with you but you are always civil and polite, even when under extreme pressure.