Saw someone the other day saying Labour is the only party that will acknowledge that trade offs exist, but also that they keep picking the side of the trade off guaranteed to annoy their voters, which seemed like a pithy summary of politics.
EDIT: I see we’re once again failing the simple reading comprehension test.
I really didn’t think I’d have to defend the proposition ‘You should actually read things’ today, but here we are.
While procrastinating between studies I have now read it, and it’s as shit as the title implies.
“I know better than every leftist in the UK, from politicians of different flavours, to journalists, to unions, and they’re all gonna fuck it” was my takeaway.
What a hopeless energy vampire.
“Please! No! Don’t tax the lord billionaires! That won’t work. What about that granny whose house has quadrupled in value while she’s lived in it and made it her home? Let’s plunder her first! Forget that it’s not actually worth anything until it’s sold and is currently being used for its intended purpose of being a home. That’ll get the votes we need to raise funds for public services again. There’s absolutely no way this could backfire. You see, the poor billionaire capitalist class aren’t actually that rich and taxing them will raise nothing compared to taxing the wealthy working class!”
I feel I have to return to my earlier point that it would be beneficial to learn to read things, with which you disagree, without becoming upset.
I feel I have to return to my earlier point that if you have to resort to patronising ad hominem instead of the substance of what we’re discussing then you need to do some self reflection.
Perhaps start with reading the sidebar of your own instance.
Does it say ‘It is forbidden to advise people to read mild disagreements without getting upset’?