This government has me puzzled

Grantanow

The problem, Jaberwok, is that politics is the art of the possible. Governments have to take voters preferences into account.

Some voters, not all. Hence the ban on trail"human scent" hunting, Starmer hates rural life, he's a townie, a London elitist, does not understand ,want to , or even attended a trail hunt, to see what goes on. Yet he's pandering to the Muslim vote, Kosher slaughter too, although at least you know kosher food, we are being unknowingly fed hahal food in restaurants, etc. This government is pandering to some voters, a minority, certainly not all. Well he's certainly made sure he won't win a second term, 🙏.

Oreo

I voted for Starmer, well voted Labour anyway, but did think he was a safe pair of hands.I was wrong!

That’s interesting Oreo. Can I ask what’s made you feel he isn’t a “safe pair of hands”? When you voted Labour, what sort of Labour were you hoping for? And do you feel another party is offering that at the moment?

nanna8

DAR just for the record, I actually enjoy many of your posts. Totally disagree with a lot but that doesn’t matter. My earlier post was certainly not aimed at yourself.

Thank you for replying Nanna8.. I didn’t think your post was aimed at me. I was just reflecting more generally on how online communication can come across. Tone and wording can sometimes be interpreted as rude, even when that isn’t the intention. Since ideas of rudeness vary across cultures and communities, forums like this can bring together many different perspectives.

I voted for Starmer, well voted Labour anyway, but did think he was a safe pair of hands.I was wrong!

I enjoy your posts nanna8 nothing like a bit of plain speaking now and then if you ask me.
Which is the Australian way, they don’t beat about the bush hemming and hawing.

Oh, and I made the mistake of voting for our current leader. Not for any of what you might call ‘right wing’ parties which are actually probably worse. Just to set the record straight.

DAR just for the record, I actually enjoy many of your posts. Totally disagree with a lot but that doesn’t matter. My earlier post was certainly not aimed at yourself.

I think it's worth analysing the post that brought a rather extreme reaction. To remind you, it was:

Our lot are so far left they make Starmer look like a right wing extremist. Rudeness doesn’t become people, at least not where I live. Still xenophobia is xenophobia I suppose.

The comment criticises a group for being extremely left-wing, accuses others of rudeness, and implies that someone's views or behaviour are xenophobic. It uses exaggeration and political labels to dismiss opposing views rather than engage with them.

The tone is sarcastic, dismissive, and mildly confrontational, with a condescending edge. It presents moral judgement while positioning the speaker as more reasonable or principled.

It’s a bit odd to criticise rudeness while using exaggerated and dismissive language. If xenophobia is the concern, that deserves a more careful discussion.

Allira

nanna8

Galaxy

I protested that at the time, in the same way I think Nanna is often treated in the same way.

Galaxy it is always the same few people . Most are lovely and welcome all views. I guess life is like that, though. Always a few unhappy ones. Don’t get me wrong, I love the feisty ones, it the rude ones who deliberately misunderstand but they won’t change, I know that.

You're not a farmer as well, are you nanna8?
That would make you completely beyond the pale 😁

No - my nanna and granddad were, though! In Kent. Thank the Lord they didn’t live to see how things are for farmers now.

You carry on with your comments nanna8 😃

Thanks Mollygo
I don’t worry as I don’t go in for games on this forum.

nanna8

Galaxy

I protested that at the time, in the same way I think Nanna is often treated in the same way.

Galaxy it is always the same few people . Most are lovely and welcome all views. I guess life is like that, though. Always a few unhappy ones. Don’t get me wrong, I love the feisty ones, it the rude ones who deliberately misunderstand but they won’t change, I know that.

You're not a farmer as well, are you nanna8?
That would make you completely beyond the pale 😁

Galaxy

I protested that at the time, in the same way I think Nanna is often treated in the same way.

Galaxy it is always the same few people . Most are lovely and welcome all views. I guess life is like that, though. Always a few unhappy ones. Don’t get me wrong, I love the feisty ones, it the rude ones who deliberately misunderstand but they won’t change, I know that.

FranP

Many years ago, the govt of the day moved departments to high unemployment areas and built "new towns" to regenerate those areas, fully expecting the local authorities to take advantage and move upward, but they did not. Now, we are building all over the South of England and the predictions of it's being a whole city in science fiction stories are coming to fruition.
Lots of "poor farmers", what about those selling them up for massive profits as potential building land? Agricultural land anywhere near a town is being sold for 10, 20 or 30 times its value.
Our new developments 100 miles out, are being bought up by landlord groups who are offering homes to London unemployed/ low wage families at cheaper rents, but none of the Section 106 money comes this way - our schools are bursting at the seams.

Lots of "poor farmers", what about those selling them up for massive profits as potential building land? Agricultural land anywhere near a town is being sold for 10, 20 or 30 times its value.

Really? Has this land been designated as being suitable by LAs for building? Change of use from agricultural to building land is not always possible unless the land is required by the LA.

However, anti-farmer rhetoric is not unusual on GN.

MayBee70

Someone from another country was hounded off this forum for criticising the previous government but she was more of a left of centre persuasion and supportive of the current government . There were constantly accusations that she had no right to criticise because she didn’t live here but it didn’t seem to suit the narrative of the forum.

Of course it depends whether the posts agree with your own opinion, many in the UK think they have the right to comment on US politics and some in the US applaud them for support. That does not mean other opinions are not relevant.

Politics is always going to be robust if to can’t take criticism of your opinion don’t get involved

The value of land is what someone will pay. If building land is desirable then of course it will attract significantly more cash than if it stayed restricted. I see no reason why the South should be spared the level of building work that the rest of the country has to contend with. I am in favour of most things that might equalise property prices across the UK, so that geographical mobility becomes much fairer than it is.

Having said that, with geopolitical instability being what it is, it does feel foolish to restrict access to food-producing land. It’s a tricky balance. Young people need affordable housing. Many older people might like to downsize but have nowhere convenient to go. We do need more housing but nobody wants it spoiling their view (me included- I understand their position), and we need to feed the population too.

Many years ago, the govt of the day moved departments to high unemployment areas and built "new towns" to regenerate those areas, fully expecting the local authorities to take advantage and move upward, but they did not. Now, we are building all over the South of England and the predictions of it's being a whole city in science fiction stories are coming to fruition.
Lots of "poor farmers", what about those selling them up for massive profits as potential building land? Agricultural land anywhere near a town is being sold for 10, 20 or 30 times its value.
Our new developments 100 miles out, are being bought up by landlord groups who are offering homes to London unemployed/ low wage families at cheaper rents, but none of the Section 106 money comes this way - our schools are bursting at the seams.

MayBee70

Someone from another country was hounded off this forum for criticising the previous government but she was more of a left of centre persuasion and supportive of the current government . There were constantly accusations that she had no right to criticise because she didn’t live here but it didn’t seem to suit the narrative of the forum.

Sad, isn't it.
We're allowed to chat about world politics, world leaders, but woe betide anyone from overseas who comments on UK politics.

Anyway, the baby has got thrown out with the bathwater.

Getting back to the Government and their proposals, I am rather concerned about the extent of proposed building, if some might be on farmland, which we will need we want to feed our population without drastically increasing the amount of food we import, more might be on ecologically sensitive land too, risking endangered species.

Why legislation is not brought in to ensure new buildings have solar panels etc installed instead of using more precious farmland is puzzling too.

I protested that at the time, in the same way I think Nanna is often treated in the same way.

Someone from another country was hounded off this forum for criticising the previous government but she was more of a left of centre persuasion and supportive of the current government . There were constantly accusations that she had no right to criticise because she didn’t live here but it didn’t seem to suit the narrative of the forum.

These days so many threads on N&P end up either with veiled accusations of hypocrisy dressed up as concern for the rather biased perception that 'some people' don't hold Labour to the same standards that they hoped for from the Tories, with arguments about what others mean by various things or terms (always shaky ground IMO, as nobody can know what other people mean by very much, really), or with individual protestations about how unbiased the protesting poster is, suggesting that they have special powers of objectivity denied to the rest of us mortals.

There is so little discussion of the thread topic (in this case animal welfare under the current government, believe it or not) that there is no incentive to post, as anything on topic is ignored, and there is the risk of being dragged into a specious argument about posting style.

Mollygo

Be careful Oreo.

Yes.

Expressing surprise is not in any way an attack.
Shall I say I'm not at all surprised?

Be careful Oreo.

Oreo

DaisyAnneReturns

nanna8

Susieq62

Nanna8 stick to Australian news maybe 🤷‍♀️

Our lot are so far left they make Starmer look like a right wing extremist. Rudeness doesn’t become people, at least not where I live. Still xenophobia is xenophobia I suppose. .

It helps nanna8, to separate how it feels from whether something is factually correct. I’m not sure how a "fact" can be "rude". We have been dealing in facts.

It seems when the word is used on GN it's often an attempt to close down debate.

Do you now want to discuss Australian Politics and whether they vear to left or right? It is an interesting topic but not the one currently under discussion. I discuss them regularly with my son so would be happy to join you on another thread for this.

The rudeness comes from susieq62 telling a British poster who lives in Australia to stick to Australian news maybe which is saying butt out of British politics!
Surprised you can’t see that DAR.

What I can see Oreo is that the tone of your post is confrontational and accusatory.

It sounds defensive and irritated, with the calling out someone’s behavior as rude and then directly criticizing another person (me) for “not seeing” it. The use of exclamation points and rhetorical phrasing (“Surprised you can’t see that”) adds a sharp, slightly sarcastic edge, suggesting frustration and a desire to challenge or correct others rather than calmly explain.

Is this a game people really want to play?

MayBee70

I was commenting on the attitude to KS/Labour’s errors here on GN.

KS/Labour making errors seems evidently now to be seen as a virtue.

^I didn’t see the previous government’s errors as a virtue, and I don’t recollect anyone else on GN mentioning that
they did.^

Maybe Labour’s errors are different if you’re an ardent supporter but excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.

I agree that the Tory party’s way of dealing with problems was to change leaders, but I don’t recollect anyone seeing that as a virtue.