Forum menu
Goggle ‘where have all the workers gone’ for insight into how post-pandemic things have changed
Well yeah I'm keeping an eye on all of that too.
Let's see what happens to demand for goods, and supply shocks over the next few months too.
We've had Starmer's proposed exciting new system for 40 years.
It's crumbling in front of us and yet he thinks it's the road to success?
The government can act as an employer you know? It has all the cash it needs to rebuild society without the profit element being creamed away and producing 'cheap' outcomes.
It has all the cash it needs to do whatever we want society to be.
You don't need business men/women for that.
Good news is things are in really poor-shape so they can't talk up the success of private enterprise forever, particularly in delivering housing and infrastructure.
That said we do need business to produce services and products, and offer employment.
But we need the workers as much.
Yes, we need both things and we need a government that has the correct level of controls in those things to get the balance right. That will never happen in this democracy.
That will never happen in this democracy.
The STW prophet of doom has spoken! Of course it can happen. Fair wages, progressive taxes and workers rights are not extreme communist policies. They’re what we had for decades before the tories and Blair dismantled it all. In fact, that’s exactly what Corbyn was offering, but you’ve already said you don’t think he’d have been any better than Johnson, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.
The government can act as an employer you know?
Yes, we do know. Do you want it to be the only employer?
Of course it can happen.
Can, and should.
Or are we going to pretend you are either pro-business, or pro-worker, and you can only be one or the other?
I think that's roughly the case. The solution the UK has found to the conflict between workers and business owners is to completely strip workers of any collective power.
If we're going to have this form of capitalism then I think it's reasonable that the role of the state should be to shield people (ie workers) from the consequences of the imbalance.
Starmer gets The Times onside
I'm sure the working people of the UK will be very relieved about that. 🙄
It's not just The Times though, is it. Those two speeches were a strong contrast between a failing flailing PM, and the alternative. Of course, unless Starmer had gone in there and told all the CBI members that they should be out of a job, capitalism has failed, prepare to be nationalised, you're all going to jail... his distractors on the left are going to attack him. But for most people, there was only one man speaking to the CBI yesterday taking the role of the PM seriously. The question will build over the next few years as to whether voters really want serious though... I'm not hopeful, but would love to be wrong.
If you take the second quote in isolation then you do get the trickle down economics nonsense of the right wing.
I don't think it does. Everyone knows that in a non-communist system, when businesses do well there's more money around. Trickle down is nonsense, yes, but the more money businesses make the more there is for a left-wing government to redistribute. I thought this was fairly obvious no?
I don’t think it does. Everyone knows that in a non-communist system, when businesses do well there’s more money around. Trickle down is nonsense, yes, but the more money businesses make the more there is for a left-wing government to redistribute. I thought this was fairly obvious no?
This might seem obvious but is in no way correct.
Money is not 'generated' by business. Businesses are currency users not issuers. The UK government is a monopoly currency issuer. Governments with central banks like ours do not redistribute money (as in via Taxation) - They issue new money every time they spend. This money makes its way through from public to private purse.
Left-wing or Right-wing the government has the same power of spending.
This is why every time we go into austerity (I.e the UK government taxes back more than it spends) - then countries like the UK & USA have historically dropped in recession - because business is ultimately being starved of money because consumers have less to spend.
Money is not ‘generated’ by business. Businesses are currency users not issuers
is this always the case? If a business attracts foreign investment? Or if they sell their goods abroad? Or in the case of tourism tourists come here and spend their money earned abroad here?
Trickle down is nonsense, yes, but the more money businesses make the more there is for a left-wing government to redistribute.
Um....
At a time of economic anxiety business leaders deserved better than the prime minister’s shambolic speech - they got it instead from Sir Keir Starmer
They got it much more convincingly from Jeremy Corbyn a few years ago but the Times et al were too busy trying to make him out to be a dangerous communist terrorist.sympathiser.
Of course, unless Starmer had gone in there and told all the CBI members that they should be out of a job, capitalism has failed, prepare to be nationalised, you’re all going to jail… his distractors on the left are going to attack him.
What do you think you are achieving with this kind of stupid straw man? 🙄
I mean, capitalism has failed, if you think avoiding planetary disaster for humankind is important, but...
If a business attracts foreign investment surely that is creating money?
No - there is no creation of money from anyone apart from the BoE and its agents.
The UK generally imports more than it exports.
They got it much more convincingly from Jeremy Corbyn a few years ago but they were too busy trying to make him out to be a dangerous communist terrorist.
But he was pro leave and always was. Brexit is bad for business especially leaving the SM & CU so I am not sure how JC could have been credible with this?
Or if they sell their goods abroad? Or in the case of tourism tourists come here and spend their money earned abroad here?
With exports - this is not that good in the long run as you're swapping a real resources for money. Something the Government can issue when it needs to.
Tourists from the UK also take their money out of the country. Neither of which is part of money creation.
No – there is no creation of money from anyone apart from the BoE and its agents.
I edited my reply to remove the bit about creation of money for that reason. If a business attracts foreign investment that is bringing money into our country no? BoE had nothing to do with it?
If a business attracts foreign investment?
They have to deal in GBP ultimately.
There is only one source of GBP.
When a company attracts foreign investment - it will ultimately be on a balance sheet and owe the investor. It's a loan. Not generation of money.
Sort of like how commercial banks work.
Of course, unless Starmer had gone in there and told all the CBI members that they should be out of a job, capitalism has failed, prepare to be nationalised, you’re all going to jail… his distractors on the left are going to attack him.
I refer you to my earlier post. What the vast majority of us want is not the end of capitalism, but a fairer, more transparent and less cutthroat form of it..
I watched that when you posted it before. And agreed with you. Both of them talked about growing businesses, and how that can benefit the country as a whole. Starmer's focus on improving skills, wages and security for workers benefiting companies, and society as a whole, was utterly uncontroversial, but a stark contrast to the current government cutting the money spent on post GCSE education... hurting future workers, and businesses, and society as a whole.
"Trickle down is nonsense, yes, but the more money businesses make the more there is for a left-wing government to redistribute. I thought this was fairly obvious"
Trickle down is nonsense for more reasons than one, which is why despite once being said in all seriousness it is a rarely used term these days, other than a source of ridicule.
Not only is it obvious that making billionaires even wealthier doesn't automatically equate with more money for those who haven't got a pot to piss in, but it is an established fact that if you give a fiver to someone on very low income it will stimulate the economy significantly more than giving a fiver to a billionaire.
Those at the top of the ladder need consumers with money in their pockets. Someone without a pot to piss in is no good to anyone.
The way to stimulate the economy is to irradiate poverty, not making the very wealthiest even wealthier.
The way forward is trickle up, not trickle down.
I run a small business consultancy, all the folks in the business are very well paid typically twice the national average.
We charge substantial day rates 700 to 900 a day this allows us to pay the wages.
For me as a socialist/capitalist (stand back and braces himself) the problem with the current pre covid economy is that it was built on mimnimum wage services and priced accordingly- we need to pay people more and pay more for the associated services,
For me to pay someone £50k per annum i need about £70k (minimum) to cover that) or about 100 days consultancy and that does not cover training, insurance, non fee earning staff etc.
If i assume 30 days leave 15 days training, 12 days admin and other odds n sods thats 60 days from 240 days so 180 days available for paid work. Then i take out presales/proposals etc which is typically 48 days i am left with about 30 days to create net profit..
My rambling post shows how a day rate converts into a salary... in summary you need to make lots of money (in the real world) to pay good salaries.
Those at the top of the ladder need consumers with money in their pockets. Someone without a pot to piss in is no good to anyone.
The way to stimulate the economy is to irradiate poverty, not making the very wealthiest even wealthier.
The way forward is trickle up, not trickle down.
I absolutely agree that this should be the economic goal. Sadly, the current situation is that the big bad capitalists only need enough people with enough money in their pockets so that they can generate big profits and leave the genuinely poor up shit creek.
And there's nothing to stop this bit:
Secure, well paid, skilled work is not separate from good business. It is the driver of good business.
helping to work towards that with the right government strategy behind it.
My rambling post shows how a day rate converts into a salary… in summary you need to make lots of money (in the real world) to pay good salaries.
Have you ever estimated your own value to the business? Maybe you should be paying yourself less.
Save that line for job interviews copa.
Lol, 'ambulance chaser' law firms going after Labour for data breaches and judging by some of the FB posts they are in deep doodoo.
In fact, that’s exactly what Corbyn was offering, but you’ve already said you don’t think he’d have been any better than Johnson, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Apart from that is not what I said, at all. I said I don't think Corbyn would have been a better leader than Johnson, i.e. leading his party, getting people behind him, getting things achieved etc,. as he was proved to be useless.
Do I think that a Corbyn Labour party would be better than a Johnson tory party, absolutely.
See the difference?
Apart from that is not what I said, at all. I said I don’t think Corbyn would have been a better leader than Johnson
No you didn't, here's the quote..
I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
Do you still stand by this after the last few days?
Copa i pay myself the same as our senior consultants and deliver 150 days consultantcy into my business each year.
I sure as shit dont sit and take profits.
Copa i pay myself the same as our senior consultants and deliver 150 days consultantcy into my business each year.
I sure as shit dont sit and take profits.
Why don't you pay yourself less as you're generating less income than your senior consultants?
How many Corbyns do we think could dance on the head of a pin?
Do you still stand by this after the last few days?
Yes, I still think that as it is still what I said, PM = leader. Corbyn would have been as useless as Johnson as PM. You did see how useless he was during his last couple of years didn't you?
Remember this is solely about him being in the PM position and how capable he would be in that role and not about labour vs tory which you got confused with earlier.
Why don’t you pay yourself less as you’re generating less income than your senior consultants?
Because his other work running the business enables the other consultants to generate income maybe?
This, is both wrong, and a stupid thing for him to say:
“When business profits, we all do”
Most business in the UK are small and independent, and mostly owner operated. So rather than Amazon or JCB, think hairdressers, pub landladies, the garage that does your MOT, the builder or the plumber you use.
The latest opinion poll out today gives the Tories a 3 point lead over Labour.
Voting intentions:
Con 39% (no change vs October 2021)
Lab 36% (+2)
L Dem 10% (+2)
Green 5% (-3)
SNP 4% (-1)
Reform UK (formerly Brexit Party) 2% (no change)
UKIP 2% (+1)
Plaid Cymru 1% (no change)
Other 1% (no change)
The latest opinion poll out today gives the Tories a 3 point lead over Labour.
Not surprised, they are doing a great job at the moment aren't they. Green has also gone down by a big amount, guess the COP26 thing already worn off.
Those voters eh...
The latest opinion poll out today gives the Tories a 3 point lead over Labour.
With little more than a third of the vote(...ing intention).
I think Labour could do worse than embracing PR...
I think Labour could do worse than embracing PR…
It was tried at the last conference but the unions blocked it.
"79.51% of Constituency Labour Party delegates backed the motion, while 95.03% of affiliates voted against."
This is before Johnsons latest u-turn on masks, too
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1464694609662124036?t=n9Xq8XnZSVyfYgOQqRUXFg&s=19
Polls are essentially level at the moment too
That change is because Boris has had a shitshow over the last month and not because Starmer has done anything good. Confirms a few things;
- It is for the tories to lose
- The leader really does matter and has a big bearing on voting, despite what some on this forum think
I see Starmer's pointless reshuffle has generated a lot of excitement on here. 😀
I thought it was much needed, and is now a much stronger front bench... I didn't post here because I suspect it'll just turn into rants about the new shadow home secretary... for what it's worth, I think what-s-name never made an impact, and Cooper should do much better.
Lammy in a major post is the big win for me. Very happy about that.
Is there any point discussing it on here? I dip in and out of this thread and its always the same few going on and on about how awful Starmer supposedly is.
its always the same few going on and on about how awful Starmer supposedly is.
Can someone tell us some good stuff to counter that then? I'll wait...
I thought it was much needed, and is now a much stronger front bench…
If by stronger you mean more right-wing. Also sidelining Rayner in yet another total dick move. And promoting Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting - yay!
I know I'll get called a racist but this reshuffle also involves the promotion of more self-defined Zionists and members of LFI to senior positions. BICOM will be thrilled their secret leadership bid funding didn't go to waste.
Good to see Yvette Cooper back on the front bench. I bet she can’t wait to get stuck into Priti Vacant. It should be highly entertaining as the gap in their between-the-ears activity really is quite vast.
That and the 6th formers will no doubt be getting their petticoats massively ruffled, so it’s a win/win 😃
Cooper is corrupt and badly tainted . Nandy is useless. I have generally supported Starmer but this is very poor. Bringing Cooper back especially is a huge mistake
Cooper is corrupt
Come on chap, corrupt is a big word that needs some backing up.
From what I saw of her on the select committee, she seemed very capable. Why would we not want someone as capable as her in the shadow cabinet? She seems very competent and that is what we need to see?
In what way is she corrupt?
IHN check her and her husbands record. Anything for a pound. Totally ripped the piss on expenses. I dont care how capable she seems . I dont want her in cabinet
Because TJ said so. What other evidence do you need?
Totally ripped the piss on expenses.
Could've claimed £44,000 mortgage expenses under the rules at the time, did in fact claim £24,000, was overpaid £1300, ordered to pay it back. I've no dog in this fight, but that doesn't exactly strike me as a criminal mastermind at work...
I just googled her expenses, she had been investigated and cleared of wrong doing.
Doesn't sound corrupt to me, could be that her actions were morally questionable but I didn't read enough to know.
IHN check her and her husbands record.
You know what, I won't. If you're going to bandy about the accusations, it seems only fair that you should back them up.
'Corrupt' is very specific, very important, word when it comes to politicians, and should not be used lightly.
You’ll have as much luck there as you will with TJ constantly accusing Andy Burnham of being a racist despite never, despite being asked repeatedly to do so, coming up with any evidence of him being so.
Anyway… I’ll tell you who definitely won’t be glad to see Yvette Coopers return to the front bench, apart from TJ…
Priti Patel
…and Boris Johnson
And that can only be a good thing
[ quick reminder that I didn't vote for Labour under Blair, Brown or Miliband ]
Having one been once politically dead set against them, I've warmed to both Cooper and Balls in recent years, while they've been away from the front bench. I even had a dream the other night that they were job sharing the role of PM... which, in my dream, was working out really well for the UK... to the extent that the law was being changed so that we always had to have a male and a female joint PM, instead of having a deputy or stand in. In my happy simple unreal dream world, Balls was the heart and Cooper the brains of a government that was confining the Tories to seemingly endless opposition. You might have more exciting, or realistic, dreams, but mine was a warm lovely and stark contrast to UK political realities.
Quite a dream there Kelvin.
I can't stand Yvette Cooper, more Blairite than Blair and probably more Tory than some Tories. She has no voter appeal imo, and no redeeming qualities.
"No redeeming qualities"
So her ability and competence on the select committee is not a quality suited to an MP?
You may not like her or want to vote for her but your last sentence seems a bit silly.
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-29-november-2021/
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest voting intention poll in Great Britain finds the Conservative Party leading over the Labour Party by 2%, following the two parties’ tie in last week’s poll. Altogether, the full numbers (with the changes from last week in parentheses) are as follows:
Conservative 38% (+1)
Labour 36% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 10% (+1)
Green 6% (–)
Scottish National Party 4% (–)
Reform UK 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 1% (+1)
Other 1% (-1)
I can’t stand Yvette Cooper, more Blairite than Blair and probably more Tory than some Tories.
So probably slap bang in the middle of where much of the voting public are.
and no redeeming qualities.
When she came to a community-based cataract service that I set up in Wakefield, she made a pretty decent cup of tea, so there's that.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies’ latest voting intention poll
But, oddly...
Starmer on the rise... (no, I'm not sure why either)...
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1465382571626409991?s=20
And government reputation diving as regards "sleeze"... (no, I'm not sure what that covers either)...
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1465667076350267401?s=20
You may not like her or want to vote for her but your last sentence seems a bit silly.
You think it seems a bit silly because you don't agree with me.
I don't believe that any ability and competence that she might have chairing a select committee redeems her from the fact that she is a Blairite on the far right of the Labour Party.
The last thing Britian needs right now, in my opinion of course, is the Labour Party to shift further to the right and go back to the days of New Labour. Which is exactly what Cooper's return to the front benches signal.
Obviously you won't agree with me because you have a different point of view. It doesn't necessarily make my remark silly, just because you don't agree.
The last thing Britian needs right now, in my opinion of course, is the Labour Party to shift further to the right and go back to the days of New Labour. Which is exactly what Cooper’s return to the front benches signal.
The thing is, anything further 'left' of New Labour has been proven, repeatedly, sufficiently unpopular with the electorate. New Labour was the only Labour government of any form for a long, long, time. I appreciate that many in the Labour party would like a more 'traditional Labour' government, but unfortunately, generally, the electorate disagrees.
So, do you keep pushing for what you want but probably won't get, or something 'sub-optimal' but with a chance of success?
The bit I don't agree with you on is your comment of "No voter appeal or redeeming qualities"
Her redeeming qualities lie in her abilities as shown by her performance in the select committee.
Her voter appeal lies in her competence.
You personally think she is too right wing which is a perfectly acceptable opinion. Denying she has voter appeal or any redeeming features is silly.
If there were to be a General Election in the United Kingdom tomorrow, for which party would you vote?
That was the question that Redfield & Wilton Strategies asked. I was originally going to include in my post but decided not to bother.
And the reason I thought of including it was because I thought it was highly likely that someone would say "but wait.......blah blah".
I see that this time it fell to Kelvin to use the deflecting tactics.
The only question that matters is how would people vote if there was a general election tomorrow. What they think of so-and-so is completely irrelevant if in doesn't affect the way they will vote.
To find out whether it affects the way they will vote you ask "how would you vote of there was a general election tomorrow?"
I see that this time it fell to Kelvin to use the deflecting tactics.
No deflecting. Intention to vote Labour down 1 point, to vote Conservative up 1 point. Not disputing that. I find it interesting, and surprising, that Starmer as "best PM" is rising, in the same polling. Definitely worth a mention in this thread about Kier Starmer. The "sleaze" polling is less surprising... except that it's telling that the party of government still polls so well when more and more of the public are more cynical about them. Suggests that Labour aren't trusted, even when people have such a low opinion of the Conservatives in government when it comes to "sleaze".
I appreciate that many in the Labour party would like a more ‘traditional Labour’ government, but unfortunately, generally, the electorate disagrees.
Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband both lost general elections, and Starmer will lose the next one.
Ed Miliband not right-wing enough? Gordon Brown not New Labour enough?
What is Starmer's problem.....too left wing?
Her redeeming qualities lie in her abilities as shown by her performance in the select committee.
Her voter appeal lies in her competence.
Well of course she has abilities, the woman won a Kennedy scholarship to Harvard ffs. No reason I should think it is a redeeming quality though, plenty of Tory politicians have a great deal of ability.
And you really think that her alleged voter appeal lies in her competence? Is that what attracted voters to Boris Johnson...his competence?
Don’t forget that her husband was on Strictly
Big vote winner, that
The thing is, anything further ‘left’ of New Labour has been proven, repeatedly, sufficiently unpopular with the electorate.
New Labour was popular twenty years ago. It's about as relevant as Harold Wilson or Clement Atlee.
I can’t stand Yvette Cooper, more Blairite than Blair
Why not be honest and just leave it there?
She's Labour centric, if you're Labour left then you will dislike her on a fundamental level, anything past that is bias confirming garnish. The Labour Party has been made up of Democratic Socialists and social-democrats for decades and has lost elections to in-fighting and bickering.
The Labour Party, and Labour voters need to make their mind up, Labour has been in opposition now for more than a decade, and if an election were to be called next year, they're far from guaranteed a victory. Do you want to spend another decade arguing over the small stuff, whilst the Tories gain another 5 years?
The Democratic Socialists have had 11 years and 3 general elections with the Leadership of the Labour party, and they lost, we can debate the hows and whys until the cows come home, but those are the facts.
Starmer is a a Labour Centrist, I know, to the Left he's right-wing, verging on a Blairite (only said whilst spitting on the floor) but it's only a matter of perspective and like it or not, he's going to build the shadow cabinet with MPs of the same persuasion, in the same way every successful Labour leader has done before.
If you want a Labour PM with a Labour Government, even if it's not the perfect shade of Red you'd like, then you have to get onboard with it.
Starmer is a a Labour Centrist, I know, to the Left he’s right-wing, verging on a Blairite (only said whilst spitting on the floor) but it’s only a matter of perspective and like it or not, he’s going to build the shadow cabinet with MPs of the same persuasion, in the same way every successful Labour leader has done before.
Funny, cos that's not what his leadership manifesto said...
And I think that's the problem many of us have with him - he's a liar.
Why not be honest and just leave it there?
Which bit do you think is dishonest? And the reason I didn't leave it there was that I was challenged, like you have just done, quite extensively.
Would it help the thread if I just changed my opinions to conform with the general consensus?
She’s Labour centric, if you’re Labour left then you will dislike her on a fundamental level, anything past that is bias confirming garnish.
Yes because its always the left wings fault isnt it?
If you want a Labour PM with a Labour Government, even if it’s not the perfect shade of Red you’d like, then you have to get onboard with it.
As arguments go that might have worked before the lunatics on the right of labour made it clear they would prefer a hard right government than anything left wing.
Given the evidence of how far the overton window shifted last wing why would anyone want to repeat the same mistake?
Well of course she has abilities, the woman won a Kennedy scholarship to Harvard ffs. No reason I should think it is a redeeming quality though, plenty of Tory politicians have a great deal of ability.
And you really think that her alleged voter appeal lies in her competence? Is that what attracted voters to Boris Johnson…his competence?
I said her competence is a redeeming quality, do you think she is competent?
Boris voter appeal was not his competence, his jack the lad spirit was his voter appeal. He did not appeal to me but to deny him of having voter appeal (to a certain demographic) would be silly.
Funny, cos that’s not what his leadership manifesto said…
Miliband played the same game in 2010. Beat his brother by positioning himself to the left of him… and never stuck to it as leader. One face for a leadership battle, a different one when facing the nation.
I can’t stand Yvette Cooper, more Blairite than Blair and probably more Tory than some Tories.
So probably slap bang in the middle of where much of the voting public are.
This!
In the bell curve of the UK electorate the mode is probably just left of 5 (if extreme left is 0 and extreme right is 10) and 80% of the electorate are probably between 4 and 6.
The self-selecting Labour membership is being pulled towards 3, where the ideological purity is better, but the number of voters is vanishingly small.
What's better, a hard left protest group or a centre-left government?
Beat his brother by positioning himself to the left of him…
It's hard to imagine an easier thing for him to do.
So how did it turn out for Ed Miliband? Since you appear to be claiming that Starmer is simply following Ed Miliband's tactics.
The self-selecting Labour membership is being pulled towards 3, where the ideological purity is better, but the number of voters is vanishingly small.
Quite. Labour should be slap bang in the middle, where they will hoover up all the Lib Dem votes.