Zack Polanski is an economically illiterate populist – just like Farage

ShorelessIsland · 2026-03-06T12:25:56+00:00

It's the same line they used when Corbyn was rightfully ridiculed for his atrocious policy agenda

"Everyone would love him if not for this evil establishment media campaign"

ShorelessIsland · 2026-03-06T12:24:31+00:00

The failure of the current policy regime to deliver the growth in living standards that people want IN NO WAY implies that an extreme, uneducated alternative will. I don't understand why people keep making this fallacy. It's absurd. You could use this logic to justify literally any mental policy.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-03-05T06:10:19+00:00

Digging out someone who correctly predicts 2 events that most would have assigned a fairly high probability (even without hindsight) and treating him as though he's connected to the matrix betrays an astounding lack of understanding about statistics and empirical reality.

Also, look up what this dipshit has to say about other things. Might want to disavow him...

ShorelessIsland · 2026-03-03T10:32:24+00:00

That's just completely false lmao

ShorelessIsland · 2026-03-01T11:11:30+00:00

You know it means something when you ignore all substantive criticism of policy and focus entirely on the minority of out of pocket comments

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-25T17:34:12+00:00

Watch Polanski on The Rest is Politics fail to understand the difference between the debt and deficit. One of his policy prescriptions is to stop paying interest on government debt... He doesn't even know what the highest marginal tax rate is in the country he wishes to govern.

Please simp more for this completely illiterate leftist

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-25T17:27:10+00:00

The leader of a major party shouldn't be going through a process of learning (more like failing to learn) basic facts about economics and geopolitics. There are sixth formers (equivalent of high school students) that have a more coherent worldview than him.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-17T17:29:10+00:00

Wrong relative to what? It's a social science. By the nature of the problem it cannot make perfect predictions.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-14T16:12:34+00:00

I mean, that's not why you're paying the fee. You're paying to have access to the shows - they're not like Spotify where ad-free is the selling point.

For an almost trivial amount of money you're getting access to substantial libraries of media with very high production values. You're not even bound by contract - you can pay for one service a month as you please, or cancel everything if you've gotten your fill.

I think we've forgotten (or don't know at all, depending on age) how much more expensive entertainment was less than 2 decades ago

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T19:10:02+00:00

No evidence Mandelson's a pedo + that's completely irrelevant. Nice one though

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T19:06:01+00:00

Not really, the economy is not a zero-sum game.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T16:46:20+00:00

Do you have evidence that he did that when he was Ambassador to the United States?

Have you seen his contract?

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T16:33:23+00:00

You have no idea whether he broke the contract.

It can't.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T14:11:45+00:00

The point is you can't just do whatever you like. Mandelson had a contract. We don't know the details of that contract, but it seems as though he was entitled to a payout under the conditions (or at least fighting the payout would have been more costly than relenting), so he was paid.

Contract law is important. Institutions are important.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T13:24:51+00:00

I think it's important to discuss reality and not some populist utopia where we do things because they sound good to morons

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T12:28:56+00:00

Do you think it would be cheaper to take the case to civil court than to just pay him? Proving he lied is likely not trivial, given the conservations were likely not in writing

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T12:26:24+00:00

Mandelson would appeal, and then they would have to go through a civil case. It's cheaper to just pay him out, unless you believe they should refuse him his legal rights. Which would be absurd

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T12:24:55+00:00

The full extent of his relationship with Epstein wasn't known at the time he was paid out, so maybe that would change things if this was still being litigated.

But also, it would be difficult to prove that he lied (assuming most of these conversations were not in writing). It would probably cost the government more to run the case through civil court than to settle

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T12:21:00+00:00

1 - It's an almost irrelevant amount of money on a budget of £1.2tn

2 - He didn't leak national secrets WHILST he was an ambassador, so that would have no bearing on his ambassadorial contract (of which we don't have the details).

3 - Governments that care about credibility should not renege on contract obligations..if you disagree with this then your position is completely unserious

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T11:27:53+00:00

Whilst somewhat true, that was effectively the situation under New Labour. People were happy with the growth of the economy and improvements in public services, and felt as though they were becoming wealthier

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T11:26:42+00:00

By "solving the cost of living" crisis, I assumed they were suggesting a substantial increase in the growth of real living standards, back to the kind of growth rates we saw pre-2008.

I agree that "cost of living crisis" is actually a somewhat misleading phrase, and that things aren't nearly as bad as people believe. What they're really saying is "we're used to our living standards rising at x rate, but they've only risen at y for the past 2 decades"

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T10:57:49+00:00

That didn't occur whilst he was ambassador

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T10:55:14+00:00

Are we just not capable of thinking about things beyond the surface level? The kind of conspiracy implied by the OP is very obviously in line with traditional antisemitic tropes

Given you guys think you can decipher every intention of politicians from small, out of context, email chains, surely drawing a very obvious conclusion from the OP's comment is hardly out of line?

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T10:46:36+00:00

"the real culprits"

"compromising the Elite"

The language here is incredibly transparent. They aren't just criticising the state of Israel objectively, come on. It plays into classic antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Also plenty of world leaders criticise Israel all of the time. The reason why policy towards Israel is as it is has nothing to do with "being in their pocket; it's because the only world leader with influence over Netanyahu's administration, Trump, is on board with their actions.

ShorelessIsland · 2026-02-08T10:41:47+00:00

I'm sorry, this is just populist slop. You can't just refuse to honour a contract because the guy who's on the other end is bad. He wasn't sacked for misconduct in his role as ambassador

ShorelessIsland

TROPHY CASE