Yvette Cooper gets minced

petra

Willow3
When someone suggests that Evette Cooper takes herself off to Dover to stop the boats I’m afraid there is no other polite word.
Other than transforming herself into Canute and trying to turn back the tide ( although the tides are low at the moment) I can’t see any other way 🤷‍♀️

Sorry, I missed the post where a GN suggested that. (unless it was the lady in question said that.)

Labour have a not set a time scale.

Mollygo, I tried to find a record of your Labour SMART target, cant you point the way? All that comes up on google is what SMART targets are in principle.

Deportations have increased and they are also promising to "stop the boats".

Do you see this as a bad thing ilovecheese? Surely you don't want people to keep on putting their lives in danger by crossing the Channel in a flimsy dinghy? And you're not saying that people who have no legal rights to be here, for whatever the reason, shouldn't be deported? Apologies if I've misunderstood your post.

Wyllow3

Labour have a not set a time scale.

Mollygo, I tried to find a record of your Labour SMART target, cant you point the way? All that comes up on google is what SMART targets are in principle.

I never suggested they used that term, but if you say you’re going to do something, surely you set yourself something that is
Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound, otherwise it’s just talk.
Sorry if you don’t think that’s what they intend.

It's one of those fashionable acronyms that is useful in certain limited situations to set /achieve goals but this certainly isn't one of them imo. Far too many variables, uncertainties and forces outside of our control.

I mean they are behaving exactly like the Tories so why have a go at Yvette Cooper, she is just doing what they did.

Wyllow3

It's one of those fashionable acronyms that is useful in certain limited situations to set /achieve goals but this certainly isn't one of them imo. Far too many variables, uncertainties and forces outside of our control.

So it’s a non-specific, non -measurable, unachievable, irrevelant target with no time limit set.
Can’t be achieved because of variables, uncertainties and forces outside of our control
Thats just what other governments have proposed -with the same excuses.
So basically, it’s just talk.
They’ll take justifiable credit for anything they do achieve, but excuse themselves if they don’t manage it because of variables, uncertainties and forces outside of their control.

But we were promised change Ilovecheese so we don't want Yvette Cooper or anyone else^just doing^ what the Tories did.

The fact that a very basic acronym wasn't used to describe a set of objectives doesn't mean that it fulfils none of them😀. These things aren't in binary opposition, are they? What a strange outlook.

No, we don't want to relive the Tory regime, but why does the fact that things haven't reversed within six months mean that this might happen? There is a huge leap of logic there.

Remind me of the Tory excuse for not 'stopping the boats'? Covid? Ukraine? They get the blame for most of their failures, but if we are playing the 'tit for tat'/'I know I am but what are you?' game then presumably that is ok when the Tories do it, but not Labour? Or would that be the double standards ad hypocrisy of which anyone wanting to give Labour a chance is accused?

I'd rather judge each regime on its merits, and there hasn't been time to see whether the new government will fulfil all of its promises, or whether immigration is really the most important challenge it faces.

It’s really funny the way some people leap to Labour’s defence.
A specific target that the person announcing it doesn’t believe is achievable?
What is the point of announcing it as a target?
Even more strange is the impression given by the defenders, that they don’t think it’s achievable either and are already providing the excuses, just in case.

petra

Do any of you numpties who think it’s a simple process to stop the boats read any articles with words of more than two syllables.
I appreciate some might find it difficult but is worth persevering, you might learn something.

Gosh, did your Christmas lunch upset you? That’s a really nasty post.

Mollygo

It’s really funny the way some people leap to Labour’s defence.
A specific target that the person announcing it doesn’t believe is achievable?
What is the point of announcing it as a target?
Even more strange is the impression given by the defenders, that they don’t think it’s achievable either and are already providing the excuses, just in case.

My sense of humour is obviously different from yours 😀

I'm not leaping to anyone's defence, just pointing out that your post shows the exact same 'hypocrisy' of which you accuse people who aren't sniping at everything the LP have done and are doing.

Never mind - none of us is as unbiased as we might claim, are we?

I'd (genuinely) like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, though. The right to hold different opinions is one of the best things about living in the UK, and whilst I don't like the sniping and point scoring that has spoilt GN for me lately, I really hope that right continues. Let's all hope for a peaceful 2025, however we voted.

petra

Do any of you numpties who think it’s a simple process to stop the boats read any articles with words of more than two syllables.
I appreciate some might find it difficult but is worth persevering, you might learn something.

Bloody rude!!!

Whitewavemark2

Now I understand why I am no longer interested in partaking in the N&P threads - it’s the tiny narrow mindedness.

Still one thing that helps to balance the pettiness -

Since Labour took office there have been 29000 forced repatriations. Up by nearly 30% since this time last year.

Labour has now in place a number of agreements - negotiated by Cooper- with various countries which will help with repatriation,

Reasons to be cheerful eh?

There do seem be a great many narcissistic ideologues in the country/world. The women who berated Yvette Cooper was obviously one.

Where has the world of discussion, critical thinking and listening gone - or has it never existed for some parts of society. What happened to our education system that seems to have produced a number of the vocally vituperous who seem to believe that simply being themselves gives them dispensation from the consideration of others.

Ultimately if GN can creating spaces for meaningful engagement and recognise the value of diverse perspectives it can lead to healthier public discourse.

Can I see older people ceasing to scold those who don't agree with them and learning to tolerate and discuss. Not at the moment!

PoliticsNerd 👏👏👏👏👏

It is all so disappointing though.

GN has changed over the past say 5 years.

There was always heated disagreements and debate, - not always at an academic level 😄😄, but there was no underlying nastiness, pettiness or willingness to believe downright lies.

You can’t have a reasonable discussion when that enters discourse.

So many reasonable people on all sides of the debate have gone.

So true, such nastiness on GransNet now, why ?

Irrespective of 'Party', there is a general disillusionment and interest in politicians. The future seems to moving towards business men making the rules (look at America). We, the Brits, are moving away from the two party system (Reform are gaining Labour voters) but ultimately the ball is with Big Business.

they don't learn much at all at school or college about politics, infact it is generally avoided

Boz

Irrespective of 'Party', there is a general disillusionment and interest in politicians. The future seems to moving towards business men making the rules (look at America). We, the Brits, are moving away from the two party system (Reform are gaining Labour voters) but ultimately the ball is with Big Business.

If you think that countries being run by Big Business is in any way admirable just look at Victorian Britain and think very hard about what it would be like.

If you care about democracy , all citizens having a say in how the country is run, I would suggest trying to thwart Big Business's aspirations as much as possible and certainly not think that there is anything admirable about its willingness to pay its way to political power.

P.S I'm using 'you' in a general sense, not aimed at Boz.

I think its a number of things - the political discourse conducted now in MSM as well as the many dark corners on SM have polarised and become divisive and often full of hate and above all, personalised, it becomes more difficult to have an opinion without it resulting in being taken personally. A horrible sign of the times.

Thread titles and O/P's can sometimes set a tone (this is a general remark not specific to this threads) that encourages a tit-for tat sort of discourse.

I wanted to reflect on the issue of how "tight" government targets can be in terms of deliverables and time scales. It seems to me that it very much depends on the policy area.

For example, recent pledges on getting more police "back on the streets" gave numbers and time scales and specific aims.

But immigration/migration is the one I suggested above that doesn't fit in a category where you can have full sets of pledges.
I suggested it was because of international forces outside our control.

We can set aims like how many more workers will be trained and available for processing but we can't know in advance which countries (like Syria, or the Ukraine, or other troubled areas in Africa or the Middle East) have become more or less dangerous in terms of taking asylum seekers. We cannot know what migrant policies other European countries will develop and therefore affect us.
We can't set number targets on how well policies which involve working with European Agencies will be curbing smuggling gangs. We cant know now which governments will accept repatriation in 2 years time.

So you set out aims and objectives and as many specific pledges as possible and report (as we've had on repartitions) and end up with policy that attempts to be as clear cut as possible but not promise on areas we have not got control over. I dont see how much more can be reasonably expected.

When I joined GN as a non political person I always enjoyed the quality of the political debate. For example, Anniebach had an insight into how politics really worked through her activism and her friendship with leading political figures. Politics used to be a serious topic but it has been reduced to the entertainment value of comic slogans and mud slinging.
I agree that so many reasonable people on all sides of the debate have gone.

For what it's worth, I think that a lot of the problem comes from a decline in media discourse. So much is expressed in slogans - 'on its knees', 'off a cliff', 'under a bus', and name calling - 'Two tier Keir', Robber Reeves' etc. They start on social media or in the press, and get repeated in conversation and pass for 'debate', but they prevent real analysis or even discussion, as nobody knows what anyone else is talking about. Anyone can repeat a 'catchy' slogan, and doing so means that they can have a dig at something or someone without having to think too deeply, and it puts people off replying, or even posting in the first place.

Obviously this suits populists, as they don't want people to ask incisive questions, or talk to one another in ways that challenge the simplistic soundbites.

I heard an interview recently in which someone said that the NHS used to be on its knees, but now it's on its face . That sort of thing is meaningless, and the whole sloganising lends itself to playground jeers and trading of insults instead of a discussion of actual issues.

I've been on GN more than five years, and whereas there have been heated threads in all that time, and disagreement about policy and personnel in politics, it's since it became obvious that Labour would win the election that the slogans and sneering has come in. It got so bad that some people were banned, others have left, and this has given the green flag to sneering and point scoring that doesn't debate very much. I suspect bots are behind some of it, but I can't be sure. What I am sure of, though, is that if people know that there are those looking for ways to shout 'Gotcha!' because their post can be read in more than one way, or that there is a minor inaccuracy or typo, it stops 'conversation' and leads to a much more stilted discourse, which is not what GN (or most discussion boards) does best.

If GN ceases to be somewhere for discussion, life will go on. More posters will leave, and find other places to post or other things to do with their time. But if discussion stops everywhere, and is replaced with second hand slogans, democracy is at risk, which is a lot more serious a prospect.

I think we just have to keep trying to make it the best we can.

I have given up, 2024 and still use of Mandy for Peter Mandelson , and I still don’t know what ‘Minced’ means in O/P,
a wish for the death of Evette Cooper . and a post mocking her
marriage!