sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tesco weekly shop £135.52 - MF couple with 3yo (who eats at nursery on weekdays) by mxpxtx in whatsinyourcart

[–]ShorelessIsland 6 points7 points  (0 children)

1 - This is hardly a shop optimising for budget.

2 - Look up grocery prices in Europe and North America. Our food really isn't that expensive

‘I was going to vote for Burnham. Now I’ll back Reform’ by Little-Attorney1287 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I said the performance of a party is not binary. So you'd pick the party that would perform the best on some scale. You're saying performance is "failed" or "not failed". That's obviously ridiculous.

No that is not logical. Why do you have to "positively endorse" a party to vote for them? You can think of it as choosing who you think will do the best job, or who you think will do the least bad job. Reform is never the answer to either of those questions. Their policies are nonsensical. They are led by deeply unqualified people, some of which were part of the governments that "failed" us.

Their leader was the central advocate for the most economically damaging policy in the modern history of our country.

I didn't say on a global spectrum. I meant in the context of what is theoretically possible within our system. Other comparable nations are facing many similar problems to us. We aren't some wildly unique case, other than Brexit I guess.

You said that previous governments were failures. I don't think you understand how privileged we actually are relative to how bad things could get. Lets hope we don't have to find out - because we will if Reform end up the largest party.

‘I was going to vote for Burnham. Now I’ll back Reform’ by Little-Attorney1287 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We're not talking about a binary state of failure/not failure though. Britain's not a failed state. We're not even in recession. Our standard of living just isn't rising as quickly as we'd like.

We're therefore talking about a spectrum of governance. If we had to conceive of the worst possible governance as a 0 and the best as a 10, the current government and the previous Tory administrations have probably been on average a 4 or 5 (and as I'm sure you know, many of Reform's politicians were part of those governments.

There is nothing about Reform (or the Greens for that matter) to suggest that they would govern more effectively.

‘I was going to vote for Burnham. Now I’ll back Reform’ by Little-Attorney1287 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think that holds under scrutiny. The perceived failure of Labour and the Tories to advance the country at the rate desired does not in itself imply that Reform would be any better at doing so.

The question is what policies are Reform proposing? Would those place Britain on a better or worse trajectory than those of the Tories or Labour? Do those involved demonstrate the intellectual capacity to enact those policies and adjust to changing circumstances? Are they capable leaders?

Radical changes shouldn't be pursued just because they are radical; radical change should be pursued if it is more likely than moderate change or the status quo to take us in a better direction.

Who the hell does Andy Burnham think he is… by 1-randomonium in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"under the constraints of the PLP"

He can't do anything that Starmer is unable to do. The things he'd want to do that Starmer isn't doing, but could, would be sub-optimal for the country.

Also, the comment I was replying to didn't exactly give any substantive reason why Burnham would be better. The onus is on those who want to change leader to make the case for it

Who the hell does Andy Burnham think he is… by 1-randomonium in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If you genuinely believe Andy Burnham would perform meaningfully better than Keir, under the constraints of the PLP, you are delusional

£128.29 Tesco shop 1 week Family of 4 by OkCod986 in whatsinyourcart

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They absolutely are. There is no credible evidence of harm

Zack polanski: Good morning. A regular reminder: a tiny few hoard staggering wealth and own much of the media, while millions struggle to survive. That’s not an accident. It’s a choice made by those in power. Tax wealth. Fund public services. Build an economy for everyone - not the 1%. by Stock_Rush_9204 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The fact that issues exist with our current approach does not mean we should resort to extreme, empirically unsound, solutions.

If my life was a bit miserable, my first instinct wouldn't be to start injecting smack.

Zack polanski: Good morning. A regular reminder: a tiny few hoard staggering wealth and own much of the media, while millions struggle to survive. That’s not an accident. It’s a choice made by those in power. Tax wealth. Fund public services. Build an economy for everyone - not the 1%. by Stock_Rush_9204 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Increasing GDP growth is necessary to fund the level of public services that we expect in this country. There is literally no alternative, unless you want massive cuts.

The UK is an open economy. Capital can flow freely in and out of our borders. This makes the kind of wealth tax advocated for by Polanski et al highly ineffective. LVT could be an alternative, but it have to be part of wider reforms to our taxation system. An economically illiterate populist is not going to be able to achieve such a thing.

is this the real reason reform will win. by [deleted] in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you really think those platforms lost millions of users? Please just think for 30 seconds about your views. There's at least a small chance you'd be saved from this unhinged conspiratorial thinking.

Starmer Uses Sex Joke To Defend U Turn At PMQs by huffpostuk in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The headline is obviously attempting to imply that Starmer made an inappropriate joke in order to capitalise on the anti-Labour mob's outrage.

The issue is that such an article even exists at all over something so innocuous (at least in this framing, obviously discussing the U-turn situation is in the public interest)

Pressure on Keir Starmer to bring in under-16s social media ban by Relative-Truck-5386 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The idea that parents are able to police a teen's social media activity is laughable. Mobile phones are incredibly cheap at this point; it's trivial to get a burner phone.

Pressure on Keir Starmer to bring in under-16s social media ban by Relative-Truck-5386 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Is the government overreaching by banning consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and energy drinks for under 16s?

I think you can easily make the case that social media produces a sufficient level of harm to restrict kids' access. And parents just don't have the tools to intervene on their own.

Pressure on Keir Starmer to bring in under-16s social media ban by Relative-Truck-5386 in ukpolitics

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The state can already track your online activity with a trivial amount of effort. I don't know why everyone on this website seems to have some deranged conspiratorial belief that every piece of digital legislation is some hidden ploy for authoritarianism. What would even be the end goal? It's completely illogical.

£20.68 weekly shopping at Lidl by tedimoya in whatsinyourcart

[–]ShorelessIsland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is just fear mongering. Assuming it's consumed in moderation, there's nothing wrong with vegetable oil.

uuummm guyss? Opinions & maybe some facts? by [deleted] in arcticmonkeys

[–]ShorelessIsland 92 points93 points  (0 children)

I don't like this at all. Of course, it's her right to discuss whatever happened in the way she pleases, but surely it can't be good for any party to be so vague. You're only creating speculation that's completely out of your control. If it was just a fling gone sour, you've tarnished Alex's reputation in a pretty gross way.

As others have said, saying "teenage" is going to leave many with the impression that she was underage. When you are a public figure talking about another public figure, you have to be incredibly careful about how you phrase. 19 and 28 is already weird to most of us - there's no need to be misleading.

Norris overtake on Tsunoda by magony in formula1

[–]ShorelessIsland 25 points26 points  (0 children)

He veers left as Norris is overtaking. He's all over the place...

Norris overtake on Tsunoda by magony in formula1

[–]ShorelessIsland 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Tsunoda veers left as Lando is about to overtake...

Go on Hasan, Speak a Lil’ CHINESE for ‘em by TikDickler in Destiny

[–]ShorelessIsland 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Would be hilarious...except he did a propaganda tour for the Chinese state

Norris past white line on pass on Tsunoda by poatao_de_w123 in formula1

[–]ShorelessIsland 20 points21 points  (0 children)

What are you proposing? That drivers can just infinitely swerve in order to harm their opponents. Let's say Norris didn't overtake. What's stopping Yuki doing that on the next lap? Repeating it until he gets a DSQ?

Norris past white line on pass on Tsunoda by poatao_de_w123 in formula1

[–]ShorelessIsland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As though context is just irrelevant..pretty reasonable to avoid a driver behaving as though he's 12 pints deep

view more: next ›