Forum menu
"No one"... I said again and again that he wasn't an anti-semite or a racist. Others did as well.
Anyway... if we're back to this being a Corbyn thread again, it'll be back to those well trodden circles that keep others from bothering with these kinds of threads. Tiresome for all. 🥱
I said again and again that he wasn’t an anti-semite or a racist.
Much as I value your opinion I was referring more to labour MPs and others in the political sphere and media who are outraged at Johnson's Savile jibe but were quite happy to allow a lifelong anti-racism activist to be branded as the very thing he spent his life trying to eliminate. I certainly don't remember Starmer leaping to Corbyn's defence and showing the same outrage when he was the one who benefited.
Anyway… if we’re back to this being a Corbyn thread again, it’ll be back to those well trodden circles that keep others from bothering with these kinds of threads. Tiresome for all. 🥱
Oh I don't know, it's binners total obsession with Corbyn and the entertainment value it provides which keeps me coming back.
He was on full form earlier today when he yet again brought Corbyn back onto the thread with his Daily Mail columnist style rant.
Perhaps you missed it? In case you did here it is again :
The high point of Labour politics was some beardy Marxist bloke not losing an election quite as badly as everyone expected in 2017
It’s all been downhill since then and we won’t have this bloke besmirching the golden legacy of St Jeremy’s Great Triumph by doing silly things like actually being ahead in the polls and looking like a Labour government could finally be a realistic possibility!
Remember the last bloke who did that? Exactly! We don’t want any of that 13 years in power and 3 election victories nonsense!
Are you mad? That was all just awful!
Now go and have a think about what it is you’ve said and sing The Red Flag three times as penance, in front of a shrine to Tony Benn while begging Richard Burgon for forgiveness!
We shall never speak of this again
binners total obsession with Corbyn
Not the most obvious personal obsession here 😉
It's ironic to see old Rt Smear get a nasty taste of his own medicine the only difference being this one has a bit more credibility to it.
Still on the plus side whilst there are plenty of the left who arent impressed by Starmer there doesnt seem to be any right now busy amplifying the tories attack lines so thats an improvement.
>>>>
It’s ironic to see old Rt Smear get a nasty taste of his own medicine the only difference being this one has a bit more credibility to it.
he yet again brought Corbyn back onto the thread
He’s the worst for it. He’ll steer any thread back to Corbyn if he can. And then we oblige by treading over all the same ground again. Tedious. And here I am adding to it. Irresistible yet irritating. Like scratching at a sore.
Odd that for someone who was distinctly middle of the road in Euopean terms. Just shows how far we've declined.
Well I enjoy binners epic rants, especially when he's going on about "lefties".
But then I also enjoy Richard Littlejohn's rants - the styles are remarkably similar. "Beardy Marxist" is pure Littlejohn.
Talking of which have did you read Littlejohn's rant last week about cyclists?
I particularly liked this :
Sadly, it's a lesson lost on the mutton-headed communists who appear to be running 21st-century Britain.
Not clicking that link. Does he mention Keir Starmer?
Nah, if you can't deal with the arguments or evidence you go for the ad hominems. Nasty rancour. Insults are neither sophisticated nor funny.
Not an Alf Garnett fan I take it?
'You silly moo' makes you laugh does it?
SKS seems more confident in PMQs. The joke about police interviews was good (so good he told it twice) but still Boris left unscathed. A few of the questions are wasted and just allow Bojo to waffle. Starmer needs more stuff to stick, maybe a bit more specificity to pin Boris down?
Q1 "Will someone earning £30k pa be paying more tax this year than last?"
Q2 "Will someone earning £40k pa be paying more tax this year than last?"
If Boris doesn't answer why not tell the speaker he hasn't answered the question properly? For a bit of drama at the very least.
‘You silly moo’ makes you laugh does it?
No, not when you say it, why would it?
Project yourself as a ranting bigoted racist and sexist Tory voter who hates socialists and whose crass stupidity everyone laughs at, and I'll reconsider it.
I'll assume that you didn't find Alan B'Stard in The New Statesman funny either.
Personally I believe that humour can be used as a very powerful political tool.
‘You silly moo’ makes you laugh does it?
In the context of Mrs Brown's Boys it's a neo classical artform
Get over yourselves. Just because you don’t like what Ernie says doesn’t mean he shouldn’t say it.
I couldn't care less what he says, but it always seems to have the word 'Binners' in it which is very tiresome. Maybe he should start a Binners thread so he can post all the crap in there and keep this thread clean from it?
I'm sure you would appreciate that kerley as someone who clearly supports binners regular rants against "lefties". You would much rather that his nonsensical rants went unchallenged.
And not totally surprising from someone who also supports Starmer's political purges of lefties from the Labour Party - silence those who disagree.
On the plus side no one seems to have silenced you ernie...
Binners 'rants' against lefties seem little different to the rants against the despised 'centralists' who have ruined everything.
I'll compromise to get rid of the tories. But I recognise many seem to view this as being traitorous to the great cause. I voted for Corbyn twice by the way.
I also work in a factory in the Workington constituency so 'it would have been worse if Corbyn was in charge' is something I frequently hear. I also recognise others may have different experiences. No doubt the great debaters on here would win my colleagues round - sadly I lack their skills.
There's a reason why these threads always end up being about binners, it's because that's exactly the way he wants it and he's very effective at trolling.
He can't take it when other people (such as Ernie) give it back to him though. Hence why he 'doesn't post in these threads any more', and hence why he sent me abusive messages.
Had to Google Mrs Brown's Boys, haven't watched the telly since the early 80s, sounds like I'm not missing much. Yep, AD with people like that lectures won't work you need to get inside their concerns and interests. I'd be interested in exploring the current state of affairs with Tory voting anglers, they can't be all that happy.
There’s a reason why these threads always end up being about binners, it’s because that’s exactly the way he wants it and he’s very good at trolling
I thought it was because he is a paid up active member of the Labour Party who actively supports the local campaigning?
Arguably a stronger position to argue from even if they end up going full circle over time
I also work in a factory in the Workington constituency
Uppie or downie?
Morning comrades
All well at the metaphorical internet picket line?
e" alt="" />
Anyways... back to the thread, I thought Lisa Nandy (boooo, hiss... bloody centrist!) played a blinder yesterday at the despatch box. Her response to Goves 'Levelling Up' nonsense summed up the thoughts of many...
"Seriously? Is that it?"
Is the guy on the right your dad? There is an uncanny resemblance....
I do class my appearance as 'generic fat, bald, northern bloke' so it could well be.
Maybe I need to grow a comb-over?
Is this from some tv pilot that never got aired? Looks like a pre Rodney Nicholas Lyndhurst to the left of the brazier and Benny Hill on the right in the beret
Anyways… back to the thread, I thought Lisa Nandy ....
She's not Keir Starmer though is she? Your reluctance to talk about Starmer on a thread specifically about Starmer is both interesting and unsurprising.
Hence your constant and relentless need to talk about Corbyn. Or anyone else who can divert attention away from Starmer.
And Dennis 'Minder' Waterman in there too?
Starmer has proven his worth in the last few weeks, and about bloody time. Talking about other Labour front benchers stepping up to the plate isn’t about distractions. It’s also the bare minimum they should be doing. The key word being used to defend Johnson, laughably, is “delivery”. His team are trying to get it into the minds of the public that it doesn’t matter if Johnson is lying and corrupt, because he’s all about the “delivery”. So each shadow front bencher needs to be pointing out that the government is all noise and no delivery. Nandy has the easiest job there, because Gove’s job is all about campaigning. He’s the minister for repeating campaign slogans.
Even by Goves standards, yesterday was particularly vacuous. It consisted of absolutely nothing. After 2 years of absolutely nothing, bearing in mind this was meant to be a cornerstone of the manifesto they were elected on. I thought Lisa Nandy summed it up perfectly in 4 words.
"Seriously?! Is that it?!"
Indeed
Channel 4 news last night were saying that their polling showed that if there were election tomorrow, pretty much all those 'Red Wall' seats that went to the Torys at the last election would return to labour. So 'lending the Tory's their votes' does seem to be applicable. I don't think anyone outside Goves office now thinks 'Levelling Up' is anything but a completely meaningless soundbite, if they ever expected it to be
They are probably saving any actual new cash for some nice pork-barrel politics leading up to the next election. 'You know we are ****s but here's a new hospital if you vote for us'.
His team are trying to get it into the minds of the public that it doesn’t matter if Johnson is lying and corrupt, because he’s all about the “delivery”.
One thing I find never see to get challenged is this idea that we beat everyone on vaccine rollout.
While there was initial success we are now only 8th on the list of European countries for numbers vaccinated, behind Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Denmark etc. But it seems pretty established in some minds that we 'won' at vaccines.
I guess it will be seen as unpatriotic or something to point out this is bollocks. 🙄
I’ll compromise to get rid of the tories. But I recognise many seem to view this as being traitorous to the great cause. I voted for Corbyn twice by the way.
Masses of us on the left compromised by voting for Starmer either as first or second preference - he wouldn't have won the leadership otherwise. Our reward is to be lied to by Starmer and abused by centrists.
“Seriously? Is that it?”
Are you talking about tory policy or labour's? I seriously can't tell the difference. We're about to find out today how much our energy bills are going up. Labour's policy was to offer a pointless £200 a year discount when many household bills will be going up by thousands (£4k more in my case if I sign up to a fixed rate contract). The newspapers this morning are suggesting that the tories are going to provide help of around - you guessed it - £200 a year. If the tories feel comfortable implementing labour's showcase policies what does that tell you?
And today we also found out that Shell's profits have quadrupled (around a 15bn increase) compared to last year due to energy price inflation. Labour have talked about a windfall tax which sounds great but haven't said how much. The excess profit made by Shell alone translates to around £500 for every household in the UK, which amply demonstrates labour's lack of ambition. The only conclusion I can come to is that like the tories, Labour are not interested in 'levelling up' or helping working people who are seeing their incomes squeezed and outgoings sky-rocket.
To be honest working people are being so completely shafted by the entire political class that I have no idea why people aren't on the streets. I hope that changes soon.
Starmer has proven his worth in the last few weeks, and about bloody time.
The other thing that has happened in the last few weeks is that the Tories have, time and again, shot themselves in the foot and scored spectacular own goals, in the full glare of huge media publicity.
I am fully prepared to give credit where credit is due, indeed I have been slated on occasions for apparently not being sufficiently critical of the Tories, but to claim that Starmer is somehow the cause of the Tories self-inflicted damage, and the inevitable fall in voter support, is somewhat stretching it a bit.
And today we also found out that Shell’s profits have quadrupled (around a 15bn increase) compared to last year due to energy price inflation
Well, quite. Commercial energy contracts (which are not subject to a price cap) are at least four times higher than they were a year ago. It doesn't cost four times more to get gas out of the ground, or four times more for a wind turbine to spin round. Some folk are doing very nicely out of the current situation but it sure as hell isn't you or me.
Starmer raised the “protecting the gas companies from taxation, while raising tax on workers at a time when they are going to be paying more for gas” point yesterday. Expect him to do so again every week for a while.
Starmer raised the “protecting the gas companies from taxation, while raising tax on workers at a time they are paying more for gas” point yesterday.
So what would he do about it? What is he demanding the government do about it? Absolutely f-all as far as I can see. It's all very well pointing out how bad it is (as if that's necessary), but people are looking to him to see what he would do to help them, and the inescapable conclusion is not much.
And we know full-well that the Tory party will be far more interested in protecting corporate profits than helping people who can't afford to heat their homes.It'd be interesting to see how many Tory MP's are in one way or another receiving cash off energy firms. Quote a few, I'd guess
Labour are at least proposing a windfall tax on this blatant profiteering. The Tory's wouldn't dream of it. Also the 'subsidy' that they are likely to propose today is nothing of the sort. It's effectively a loan to pay for energy. It doesn't help anyone
Absolutely f-all as far as I can see.
We discussed in this thread what Labour are proposing. I didn't agree with it all, but it wasn't "f-all". The windfall tax is one part of it that I do agree with... and as it happens I think lots of backbench Conservative MPs probably do as well... pretty sure a lot of those that voted for them do... it's a good policy to turn the screw on.
Labour are at least proposing a windfall tax on this blatant profiteering.
Which will do next to nothing to compensate for the increase in people's bills. A windfall tax is pointless unless it significantly reduces the amount people are paying.
It’s a good policy to turn the screw on.
Indeed. It's difficult to argue against it when people are looking at a huge increase in energy costs at the same time as the energy firms announce a massive increase in profits.
It draws a clear distinction and shows exactly who's side they're on
Daz. We all know what your answer to everything is, but if you think about it logically surely all those petrol bombs would simply increase Shells profits even more? 😉
Daz. We all know what your answer to everything is
And yours is posting pictures. How about addressing the point :
A windfall tax is pointless unless it significantly reduces the amount people are paying.
?
Btw windfall tax is not particularly radical, Thatcher slapped a huge windfall tax on the banks when the Tories were embarrassed by their profits in 1981 and the country was in deep recession.
Exactly, which is why pushing for one is putting pressure on Conservative back benchers. It is also why Starmer mentioned banks as well as the gas producers.
He'll frame it the same way again, and again. The fact that the Conservative Party have used windfall taxes before is exactly why it is a good pressure point to turn Tory MPs, and their voters, against the government.
He'll keep pushing the VAT cut as well (which I happen to think is a poor policy, because it benefits those who use more gas/energy, and can afford more gas/energy, more than those who do/can not)... because there are people in the government (hello Prime Minister) who have (erroneously) cited vat on energy as a reason to leave the EU. It squeezes a wedge between the Brexitier MPs and voters and both the PM and his Chancellor.
Labour are at least proposing a windfall tax on this blatant profiteering.
A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.
Economically that does not translate to anything useful at all. Stop buying the bullshit.
There is only one way out and that is to nationalise energy supply - certainly if you want any sort of future and a fairer approach to pricing.
I'm sick of hearing about government tinkering to huge problems going forward.
Taxes don't fund government spending - hence a windfall tax does nothing.
What is it about centrist tinkering that it can't see its self-defeating objectives within a neolibral framework? Tweak this - trim that - cut that.
Craig Murray on Starmer and Saville
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/02/how-the-establishment-functions/
It is also very interesting how unanimously the Establishment has decided to protect Keir Starmer.
Well, there’s my opinion of Murray sinking like a stone.
It draws a clear distinction and shows exactly who’s side they’re on
You seriously think 200 quid a year is going to make people think labour are on their side? This isn't a comms problem, it's a people not being able to heat their homes problem.
Daz. We all know what your answer to everything is
I guarantee if people were on the streets throwing petrol bombs this problem would be solved very quickly. There's nothing politicians fear more than law and order breaking down.
Short termism has screwed eveything. Windfall taxes, Vat cuts - any way to preserve the failed market fits perfectly within the Labour or Tory framework.
Nobody actually wants to offer radical solutions.
Exactly what we need.
(BoE likely to raise interest rates again choosing yet again the incorrect lever with the economy.)
What a farce. Two Neolibral parties fighting to save a system that is so busted, corrupt and distorted by tweaking bits here and there.
But yeah Starmer was great in PMQs.
You seriously think 200 quid a year is going to make people think labour are on their side? This isn’t a comms problem, it’s a people not being able to heat their homes problem.
Talk about band-aid.
There is only one way out and that is to nationalise energy supply – certainly if you want any sort of future and a fairer approach to pricing.
Well only if you nationalise Norway and the UAE
Well only if you nationalise Norway and the UAE
But we were told that the markets operate so perfectly? Deliver the lowest prices, fantastic efficiency- great service to consumers.
The original Green New Deal document form 2008/10 - had this future very much in its sights. When the Tories tore it up and offered a flacid alternative.
Don't blame Norway or UAE for lack of historic UK government investment going forward in its own energy.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1489200827831042058?s=20&t=ZW4hlUaplNCoZ3MnRwRL4A
Well, there’s my opinion of Murray sinking like a stone.
Why?
But we were told that the markets operate so perfectly? Deliver the lowest prices, fantastic efficiency- great service to consumers.
The price rises will drive decarbonisation of heat faster than anything else will.
As for the markets, which one? The call centre and wholesale price hedging one or the international global gas prices?
The price rises will drive decarbonisation of heat faster than anything else will.
Than general lack of investment in our future - over the last 12 years or so.
As for the markets, which one? The call centre and wholesale price hedging one or the international global gas prices?
No, you tell me. You tell me how energy companies going to the wall is good for consumers.
I'm not a proponent of these markets.
The original Green New Deal document form 2008/10 – had this future very much in it sights. When the Tories tore it up and offered a flacid alternative.
Don’t blame Norway or UAE for lack of historic UK government investment going forward in its own energy..
Pretty much exactly what Rachael Reeves is saying in parliament at the moment
Pretty much exactly what Rachael Reeves is saying in parliament at the moment
Late.
I'm not blaming them, the price is the price and a nationalised supplier would still have to pay it. But I'd agree a nationalised generation/transmission provider could do more on renewables and infrastructure.
I’m not blaming them, the price is the price and a nationalised supplier would still have to pay it.
Although its also when was the price the price?
A major issue for the UK is that our ultra efficient utility companies got rid of most of that pointless gas storage hence making it hard to wait out a bad period.
No, you tell me. You tell me how energy companies going to the wall is good for consumers.
Generators aren't going to the wall, it's retailers. It's evidence that the sector suffered from weak regulation. Sort that out and there will be new entrants.
I’m not blaming them, the price is the price and a nationalised supplier would still have to pay it. But I’d agree a nationalised generation/transmission provider could do more on renewables and infrastructure.
True. But we are talking about a retrospective problem.
Governments can subsidise, and do - failed markets. Look at the banks 2008. But they only do it at the time of collapse.
Generators aren’t going to the wall, it’s retailers. It’s evidence that the sector suffered from weak regulation. Sort that out and there will be new entrants
Why regulate a market as opposed to not just do away with the market?
The very fact you need to have regulation in a market is evidence that it doesn't work. Especially when talking about essential services.
Look at the state of the Water 'Suppliers'. Zero competition. I don't see the benefit to consumers.
Generators aren’t going to the wall, it’s retailers. It’s evidence that the sector suffered from weak regulation. Sort that out and there will be new entrants.
Apologies - do we not call energy companies in this context - the retailers?
The Tories lending you £200 to pay your energy bill!
FFS.
Why regulate a market as opposed to not just do away with the market?
Ridiculous isn't it. We're so ideologically wedded to market economics that we invent fake ones when they're not necessary. Same goes for the NHS. Of course we all know the answer to why this happens, because friends of the government and people in the city get to take their slice.
The Tories lending you £200 to pay your energy bill!
It's actually worse than that. They're directly giving your energy supplier £200 on your behalf, which you'll then have to pay back.
Subsidising corporate profits yet again
A major issue for the UK is that our ultra efficient utility companies got rid of most of that pointless gas storage hence making it hard to wait out a bad period.
This is bigger than any price blip that could be mitigated by storage
Generators aren’t going to the wall, it’s retailers. It’s evidence that the sector suffered from weak regulation. Sort that out and there will be new entrants.
Retailers are failing because it's costing them more to buy energy than they're allowed to charge domestic customers.
If we’re going to magically get rid of all markets in energy production, should we just turn off all our interconnects with other countries? I’m all for UK energy producers and suppliers being state owned, but there is a limit to what that would achieve in terms of costs and energy security. We need to work with other countries, there would still be a large market element to our energy production, supply and use.
We need to work with other countries, there would still be a large market element to our energy production, supply and use.
The point is that the govt could subsidise prices more effectively if it owned the supply and was negotiating the price with external markets.
Oh, I agree... but it doesn't do away with markets entirely, it just places the government between us and a market for an essential good (something I would like to see happen). There would still be political decisions to make about the rising cost of energy, who pays, when they pay, how much they pay, how they/we pay. There would still be market forces to deal with.
I'd like to see fossil fuel prices rise, but income and wealth redistribution used as the way we stop the less well off freezing while the rich burn their money.
Just nationalising energy supply would risk the government subsidising fossil fuel burning even more than they currently do, to keep prices lower for all domestic users to win votes.
The point is that the govt could subsidise prices more effectively if it owned the supply and was negotiating the price with external markets.
Really?
Sell wholesale gas at less than market rates?
Have enough production to influence the market rate?
So Starmer offers 4 quid and the Tories come up with 7 pound 30p. Campaigning for less is maybe not the best way to garner votes.
That's Numberwang!
Sell wholesale gas at less than market rates?
Yeah pretty much. The govt would still have to buy at market rates, but the price to the end consumer could be lower. Govt subsidises the price of things all the time and can afford it via their unique position as a currency issuer.
Aaaah... are we printing money again?
Fire up the presses!
Weimar Republic here we come! 🤣
Aaaah… are we printing money again?
We've always been printing money FFS. Read the book and cure your wilful ignorance.
We’ve always been printing money FFS.
But it only works as a solution when the rest of the world thinks you are good for the money you are printing.
Those days are gone. 1
Another post from the Richard Littlejohn school of politics/economics.
Binners do you only think printing money is ok when it goes straight to the banks/the rich. What did you think quantative easing was?
https://www.cnbc.com/id/49031991