Forum menu
What a strange response. Daz's comment was perfectly valid. Certainly more valid imo than the comment that are worse things happening in the world.
Perhaps the people of Ukraine should be reminded that things were a lot worse during WW2? If Whataboutry is a valid comment.
You probably need to do a little review around the world to really see what ‘enormous’ levels of hardship and deprivation actually looks like because the UK aren’t even in the top 10 for that, as stated, can the UK do better, yes, but it can also do a hell of a lot worse
I think you need to do better than dismissing a problem because somewhere else there may be a worse problem. As dazh notes, we're one of the richest countries in the world, so there's really no reason for widespread poverty in the UK other than it being a political decision.
No, it’s a tory government sat round the cabinet table plotting how to keep their billionaire and multimillionaire friends rich whilst we plebs pay the taxes to keep the lights on.
Rishi Sunak presided over £150 Bn in covid quantitative easing. Divide that sum by the (approximate) 35M working-age adults in the UK, and you get ~£4250 per working-age adult. If you don't feel like you're £4250 better off than you were in 2020, then someone else has got that money.
Meanwhile, the net worth of millionaires and billionaires in the UK increased by 20% since then. It's clear where all the money has been funnelled.
What a strange response. Daz’s comment was perfectly valid. Certainly more valid imo than the comment that are worse things happening in the world.
Not as strange as thinking the rich are just out to kill off or feed off ‘the poor’
Also, what is ‘enormous’ levels, what is the definition of hardship or deprivation, I’ve spent my entire life in the uk and yet to see shantytowns, or any enormous groups who have no access to healthcare and welfare, we have poverty, we have those who need help the most, but these blanket statements about the rich, or the tories are just pointless
It’s clear where all the money has been funnelled.
Indeed. What we have in this country is socialism for the rich. Money flows upwards, and the result is misery, stress, mental health problems and suffering for those at the bottom. It may not be a deliberate action by the rich but they benefit directly from the same policies which cause poverty and deprivation. Ultimately the rich can afford to be a little poorer in order to improve the lives of millions of people at the other end of the spectrum. The fact that they (and argee apparently) think this is unacceptable tells us all we need to know about them.
https://twitter.com/adamcorlett/status/1507385634180243467?s=21&t=JJvtrvTXQqSVWEDwgeqVTA
There was a piece on the bbc the other day, about how the sanctions on Russian oligarchs had little impact because these oligarchs had protected their assets in trusts. They hadn't done this now to avoid sanctions, this was a long standing method to avoid tax. They also hadn't created the system that allowed them to do so, they just slotted in to the system used by western oligarchs.
The Tories keep shifting the tax burden towards lower paid workers (why have an NI rate increase rather than an income tax increase at all if that isn't your aim), and reducing the real term value of benefits. They do this in plain sight. Yet people still choose not to see it in action.
Russian, Indian, Saudi Arabian, etc, etc have been doing that for generations, check up on any person who had power and sucked the money from their countries coffers and you’ll find millions in assets owned by children, parents, relatives or friends.
Even with the unexplained wealth orders they still can’t get at them, you get diplomatic immunity and so on.
The spoils of victory always tend to go up the chain, have done since we created currency.
Yes, inequality, and life for those that are at the lower end of income/wealth distribution is worse elsewhere. And yes, go back far enough and they were far worse here. But now, here, in this age, we're choosing to make it worse (by supporting/electing politicians who tell us how they're going to make it worse here, and then do). We're going backwards, and cheering it on.
So what has Keir Starmer got to say about all this, to get back on topic?
What solution is he offering? Or is the problem too big?
Any ideas binners, since you hate to hear him being criticised?
My understanding is that Labour have opposed the changes to both taxation and benefits that the Tories are putting in place to shift the tax burden towards lower earners, and away from those that are either higher earners or get their income from investments. If you weren’t so busy claiming that there is no real difference between Conservative and Labour positions (presumably because you, like many of the rest of us, would like there to be a greater separation), you’d see that.
Labour have opposed the changes to both taxation and benefits
So Labour isn't offering any solution other than one to stop things getting worse?
Well I guess that if you are happy with where we are today that's fine.
If you weren’t so busy claiming that there is no real difference between Conservative and Labour positions
You are telling me that Labour wants to maintain the status quo, at least you haven't offered any evidence that they want to change it.
I will remind you that the Tories have been in government for the last 12 years.
So Labour isn’t offering any solution other than one to stop things getting worse?
Well, it would be a good start. But, no, it’s not all their offering. You should read and listen to what the front bench have to say occasionally. Hang on, were you not at a rally recently were Labour front benchers told attendees and the media about some of the ways that want the situation for workers to be improved?
So voters need to attend rallies to find out what Keir Starmer's alternative vision is?
He wasn't there btw.
Recent global events have disadvantaged Starmer and benefitted johnson - both disproportionately.
During any crisis the government - and principally the PM - will always get much more airtime and media coverage than the opposition; that's how it's always been.
Starmer's opportunities to get his point across and present an alternative to johnson are severely limited.
He needs more media coverage away from the narrow political spectrum - PMQs, political/politically focussed programmes and current affairs coverage aren't of general mainstream interest.
Regardless of how compelling his vision may (or may not) be he can't force the media to give him airtime.
johnson has been more than fortunate with one crisis after another deflecting the focus away from him and his administration.
First covid, now Ukraine - what next?
Recent global events have disadvantaged Starmer and benefitted johnson – both disproportionately.
I disagree, they have actually brought into sharp focus the folly of current economic practice. The vacuum of action on climate change has left the west reliant on even more corrupt nations for our energy needs, and our financial system has allowed them not only to buy leverage into our economies, but also political finance system has allowed them to buy power and influence over those who are meant to be our democratic representatives.
But too many are quite happy for Starmer to merely murmur disapproval. In case he should actually seize the moment to show he has some real backbone, just in case that is seen as making a political point. He is a political leader FFS in the middle of a world event, and he is meant to shy away from it to appease who exactly?
So voters need to attend rallies to find out what Keir Starmer’s alternative vision is?
He wasn’t there btw.
If it was the P&O rally ran by the unions and having Louise Haigh speak, then it wasn't really any alternative visions as captured by the Labour party if i understand it, it was basically a union led backlash against P&O and what they did.
We're not in an election year yet, so i'd hope Labour are doing more about becoming one party with a real way forward for the next election, which means all these good ideas need to be assessed, funded and given a timeline for implementation, then trade offs will occur, nothing worse than opening up their manifesto and it's a bit like the LibDems, i.e. stating they will change the world, knowing they'll never get power and never have to justify why 70% of it is pie in the sky.
If it was the P&O rally ran by the unions and having Louise Haigh speak, then it wasn’t really any alternative visions as captured by the Labour party if i understand it, it was basically a union led backlash against P&O and what they did.
I think Kelvin is referring to the rally in support of P&O employees outside parliament last Monday where Angela Rayner spoke, Louise Haigh didn't speak at that one.
I don't know why he thinks it was a good way of finding out Keir Starmer's alternative vision for Britian. I'm not even sure that most speakers were members of the Labour Party.
We’re not in an election year yet....
I'm not convinced that waiting until we are and hoping for a sprint finish is a good idea.
“We are going to have to fight this one seat by seat, promise delivered by promise delivered, doorstep by doorstep,” he said. “And from May, we will begin our two-year election campaign with the launch of our target seat strategy, building on the experience of the 40:40 campaign in 2015, building capacity, developing profile and framing the choice.”
Rishi Sunak presided over £150 Bn in covid quantitative easing. Divide that sum by the (approximate) 35M working-age adults in the UK, and you get ~£4250 per working-age adult. If you don’t feel like you’re £4250 better off than you were in 2020, then someone else has got that money
More like £400 billion.
And q/e is a bond buying program not helicopter money.
That said you could actually say that the q/e 'paid for' the covid support as it all happened concurrently. You could also say the BoE directly financed the government spending which is slight obsfucation as the government doesn't need bonds to pay for anything. (Which we absolutely know.)
Given it replaced income for lots of people - it was way more than £4250 each.
All you really need to know is that the government has the money for things it deems necessary. No ifs not buts.
You know Starmer offers less and less every day - he really has nowhere to go - because he can only react to what Johnson does.
The current commentary on Sunak being somehow disappointing is a joy to behold. What did people expect of an ex Goldman Sachs banker? Are people really this stupid?
During Covid he did what he had to. Nothing to do with him being competent or benevolent.
Listening to James Oh Brien trying to get his head around it is hilarious.
The liberal twerks always surprised that market politics run riot around the economy causing social devastation and poverty. And here we are.
Well I didn't expect this:
The Guardian: Tory leaders confident of gains in May local elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/mar/25/tory-leaders-confident-of-gains-in-may-local-elections
With all the negative headlines the Tories have had to endure since last November I fully expected them to set the bar extremely low, not talk up their chances in May.
They must feel very confident of winning seats, otherwise they'll have some explaining to do.
If the Tories apparently don't feel the need to get their excuses in early perhaps Labour should?
What/who should they start blaming if it looks like they might lose seats such as Sunderland...... Covid? Brexit? Putin? Corbyn? Johnson? Obviously not Starmer, the PLP seem very happy with him.
What/who should they start blaming if it looks like they might lose seats such as Sunderland…… Covid? Brexit? Putin? Corbyn? Johnson? Obviously not Starmer, the PLP seem very happy with him.
Definitely socialism or Long Corbyn. Bound to be.
One thing for sure no one will blame the construct of our economy which is the absolute issue for where we are.
But both the Lords of Labour and Tory support it.
Also, short memories run opinions these days so does depend what happens that week in the news.
The claim in the Times today is that Corbyn scared off the wealthy donors with demands for the end of capitalism (did I miss something?) and that the party was 'bloated' with staffers (hence the agile ceremonies). Starmer is now trying to get money out of the Sainsbury plutocrats and policies will be tweaked so as not to offend them.
I think labour need some themes that people are missing.
Ideas like solidarity, togetherness, teamwork and friendship could work.
They really don’t have to do anything differently. The voters are willing, just need to be convinced.
Labour just have to offer up something that works against the current narrative that is imaginative, reassuring and progressive, and maybe put the boot in better than a Ted Heath joke. (And do away with tax and spend FFS)
But they're not interested.
Which why the polls have resorted to being shite again.
But they’re not interested.
Just about sums up labour righ now. Even on the P&O issue, which should be a perfect platform for them, they are looking less animated and active than the tories. Has there ever been a worse leader than Starmer? In two years he's turned what was a promising looking platform for unity into a party civil war, he's nearly bankrupted the party after it was in rude financial health, and is the most anonymous, uninspiring and unimaginative leader I've ever seen. Christ, he can't even get some of rich mates to stump up a donation or two even after he's completely gutted the last manifesto.
Not difficult to imagine that the wealthy donors are lying low because he's already delivered what they wanted.
Has there ever been a worse leader than Starmer
No. I know no one - from all sides of the political spectrum that even talks about him.
He's the operating system equivalent of windows ME in 2022.
But then again Johnson is windows Vista.
I always suspected when people were calling for him as a leader for a party of national unity we were doomed. I've no idea where he got this amazing reputation from *as a politician*.
Give the man a break, he's been busy dealing with an issue that is currently on everyone's mind - criticising Prince William for being insufficiently critical of slavery.
Yup, the now famously quiet leader of the Opposition has uncharacteristically spoken out to say something - that whilst William Windsor was right to condemn a practice that occurred a couple of hundred years ago he should have gone further.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/keir-starmer-says-prince-william-161159680.html
It's stuff like that I can see convincing wavering Tory voters to back Labour - having a pop at the second in line to the throne.
And never mind with all the boring stuff like transport costs, rapid healthcare access, energy prices, police and crime, cost of living, council services etc. I can't see much public concern with those issues.
If Starmer isn't the answer, then who is the best candidate to lead labour at the next election, i'm honestly interested in opinions, as the labour front bench are pretty much devoid of anyone who's appeals beyond their current voters, Rachel Reeves maybe, but she's a hard sell to her own party, let alone at an election.
That is something of a moot point as the Parliamentry Labour Party is clearly overwhelmingly satisfied with Starmer's leadership.
I am unaware of any pressure on him to resign or any rumours of a leadership challenge.
For most Labour MPs I am sure Starmer represents exactly what they want in a leader.
Having had a pop at William Windsor he is now taking on more members of his own party:
https://labourlist.org/2022/03/exclusive-awl-among-three-more-groups-to-be-proscribed-by-labour-nec/
The Tory Party leadership must be in total disbelief at their luck.
the Parliamentry Labour Party is clearly overwhelmingly satisfied with Starmer’s leadership.
As long as they don’t lose any seats they’ll be ecstatic. They get to keep their 80k salaries, generous expenses and gilt edged pensions without having to do the extra work that being in government demands.
he is now taking on more members of his own party
Any news on the Popular Front?
Any news on the Popular Front?
Yes, didn't you read? Hot off the press - Starmer has had a go at Prince William for not sufficiently condemning slavery.
And in other news Starmer is engaging in further party infighting - He can't be dealing with all this "let's unite and fight the Tories" nonsense.
Working people throughout the country must surely be rejoicing at Starmer's visionary leadership.
Although more than likely it's the Tories that are doing most of the rejoicing.
As long as they don’t lose any seats they’ll be ecstatic
Well that's the point isn't it, most of them won't.
Besides, Nick Clegg has shown just how lucrative the consequences of failure and being rejected by voters can be.
Hot off the press – Starmer has had a go at Prince William for not sufficiently condemning slavery.
Not to mention his less than clear view on whether women can have penises. Why can't he just answer a bloody question? This is going to be the next election campaign isn't it? Starmer continually being asked his view on women with penises whilst the whole country shrugs and wonders what he's going to do about their falling incomes.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1508363760834129921?s=20&t=FXxPAnlRdwiql3AcpOPzog
Starmer continually being asked his view on women with penises whilst the whole country shrugs and wonders what he’s going to do about their falling incomes.
So, blame Nick Ferrari for asking a stupid question?
So, blame Nick Ferrari for asking a stupid question?
The problem isn't the question, it's Starmer's inability/unwillingness to answer it. Especially when it's a question that 99% of the population would answer in a second without even thinking about it. I don't really have much of an opinion on the transgender issue but I know that labour need to shut it down one way or the other because it's going to be used to batter them in the run up to the next election. You can write the tory propaganda now and it'll cut through just like the antisemitism stuff did previously.
but I know that labour need to shut it down one way or the other
Labour, or more pertinently for this thread Starmer doesn't have the ability to shut it down.
Labour, or more pertinently for this thread Starmer doesn’t have the ability to shut it down.
He could make clear his view and make the case for it rather than pretending he doesn't have an opinion. That would at least defuse it, especially when most of the popular criticisms of Starmer hinge around him being indecisive and people not understanding what he stands for. Last time I heard Angela Rayner on this subject she didn't have much of a problem expressing her view.
rather than pretending he doesn’t have an opinion.
i don’t think he does that on your clip, he just says that judging this whole issue in one sporting achievement and answering an obvious trap question by giving a sound bite isn’t really the best way of discussing a pretty difficult subject.
Ferrari is utterly obsessed with this stuff (though I'm sure it's driven by the LBC appetite of being outraged on behalf of its listeners).
However, I do occasionally listen to him for Partridge value - and the Starmer interviews he hosts are so devoid of anything at all memorable that this recent one has stuck in my head for all the wrong reasons.
Ferrari is utterly obsessed with this stuff
Indeed. So Starmer absolutely should have had a solid sounding (non) answer to that question. It was always coming. If he and his team haven't prepared and practiced responses to this kind of question, he's not ready for interviews with Ferrari (or many others).
99% of the population would answer in a second without even thinking about it
If they're not even going to have to think about it, then I don't want them, or anyone like them, as PM. Something far more nuanced is required of a possible future PM. Because this line leads to... "well, transgender kids (who because of their age won't have transitioned) are not the gender they say they are, and it's fine for society not to accept them for who they are".
If they’re not even going to have to think about it, then I don’t want them, or anyone like them, as PM.
I didn't say they shouldn't think about it, just that they need to do whatever they can to show the voting public that transgender issues are not the primary focus of the labour party, because if that's the conclusion voters come to, they're completely screwed.
They can either say no, we don't think women can have penises (or less crude words to that effect), or they can say they support transgender rights and will be bringing in policies to address the discrimination transgender people experience. It's not really an issue where they can sit on the fence, because they'll continually be asked the stupid penis question, and then everyone will think that's all they care about.
Angela Rayner this morning, answering in a clear and direct way which Starmer was completely unable to do. Maybe she should give him some lessons?
"I mean, I don’t get asked – I present as a woman, people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” And I think that’s wholly right.
There’s protections in place to protect women-only spaces and vulnerabilities around that. And there’s protections in place to support people who are transitioning, who have identity concerns.
We have laws at the moment that protect people. And I think we should be making sure that people are aware of that, not debasing it down to what genitalia someone may or may not have. I’d be offended if someone asked me what my genitalia is. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that to any person."
I didn’t say they shouldn’t think about it, just that they need to do whatever they can to show the voting public that transgender issues are not the primary focus of the labour party, because if that’s the conclusion voters come to, they’re completely screwed.
To be fair, not being able to give a concise, definitive answer makes it fairly clear that transgender issues are not Labour's primary focus. Much mileage from right-wing comnentators on social media about it, yet oddly none of them state their own position or appear to be asking Tories the same question.
Maybe she should give him some lessons?
That's a good (non) answer from her. He can't give the same response as that though, for obvious reasons. It's also the "sitting on the fence" that you just said Labour shouldn't do.
He can’t give the same response as that though
Of course he can. What's wrong with 'That question is insulting and offensive to women and transgender people. We support equally the rights of transgender people and women and don't accept that one detracts from the other.' Simple, direct, unambiguous. It's not hard is it?
To be fair, not being able to give a concise, definitive answer makes it fairly clear that transgender issues are not Labour’s primary focus.
No it just shows that he's incapable of holding or communicating a clear opinion on an issue that he's obviously going to be questioned about. Two skills I think we'd all agree are fairly important for a prospective PM to posess.
Angela Rayner this morning, answering in a clear and direct way which Starmer was completely unable to do. Maybe she should give him some lessons?
“I mean, I don’t get asked – I present as a woman, people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” And I think that’s wholly right.
There’s protections in place to protect women-only spaces and vulnerabilities around that. And there’s protections in place to support people who are transitioning, who have identity concerns.
We have laws at the moment that protect people. And I think we should be making sure that people are aware of that, not debasing it down to what genitalia someone may or may not have. I’d be offended if someone asked me what my genitalia is. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to do that to any person.”
Starmer said the exact same thing, he went into detail on the legislation and the exemptions that were in place, such as women-only spaces (including stating this was a footnote in the legislation). He also raised good practice via Sport Englands policies and was only really struggling to respond due to the coarseness of the question.
Honestly, Angela Rayner has just come out and backed the labour leader with the same information, but as a woman she can do it without the underhanded snide remarks that the likes of Ferrari used.
Starmer said the exact same thing
I just listened to him again and you must have been watching a different clip. Maybe it wasn't the content that was the problem but the way he delivered it. Or didn't, which is my point. They have to be incredibly clear and concise on this otherwise it'll consume more and more time in interviews.
I just listened to him again and you must have been watching a different clip. Maybe it wasn’t the content that was the problem but the way he delivered it. Or didn’t, which is my point. They have to be incredibly clear and concise on this otherwise it’ll consume more and more time in interviews.
It's all in the actual discussion, just prior to the clip shown above.
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
Of course he can.
You think he can answer with << people don’t ask me, “Have you got a penis?” >> ?!?
They have to be incredibly clear and concise
No, they have to be broad and inclusive (and vague without sounding it), to not get drawn into making a statement that can be used to paint them as only being interested in the lives of some people to the exclusion others. He didn't sound ready to do that though, and seemed evasive in a way his deputy did not. He needs to be more prepared for that line of (stupid) questioning... there will be far more to come.
PrinceJohn
Free Member
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
Yeah, that's what i heard, even going back to his experience as a lawyer on similar subjects, the fact he was able to provide information off the top of his head on specifics on the legislation was good, he just wasn't going to respond to that crap question at the end.
Have to say LBC is getting a bit more sensationalist these days, even James O'Brien is getting a little too OTT on some subjects, they're basically like the mirror image of GBNews these days
He answered the stupid question very well. A question designed to cause offence & controversy, he caused none.
This. ^^^
was only really struggling to respond due to the coarseness of the question.
He appears on Ferrari regularly. Clearly as a positive choice. .
Ferrari is obtuse and selects the grey area questions for black and white answers.
It's quite a friendly session for Starmer and designed this way. I think Starmer gets out of his comfort zone all to quickly and he's given an easy ride in my opinion. I think he will get trampled in the TV debates.
I think he will get trampled in the TV debates.
More so than Boris or whoever he's up against, in a 1 v 1 with the same question set?
More so than Boris or whoever he’s up against, in a 1 v 1 with the same question set?
Johnson will hide in a fridge again.
Did we establish his opinion on the next series of Drag Race, or not?
Reeves talking up a whole load of nothing during one of the most economically desperate times of recent years.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1508879552369598464?t=s36o3aYoGd63oAp0-lvEBg&s=19
FFS you're meant to be the LABOUR party you vacuous media shrill. (And I'm not a fan of Marr at all.)
She could've considered addressing inflation by talking about ruptured supply chains and how Labour might improve that by not encouraging a model based on off-shoring everything. How the BoE increasing interest rates and making money more expensive is not good strategy for rampant inflation caused by supply constraints. How we can always afford to pay public workers good wages in the face of all that they've done for us
But she doesn't because she won't point out the market has failed us. Small state free market economy is a myth. There is no economy at all without the state underpinning it. The market cannot support itself.
If capitalism fails to work the government can change it to make it work for the majority of people.
Natural Labour territory.
his opinion on the next series of Drag Race
Don't be silly binners. The leader of the Labour Party reserves his opinions for much more important issues.
Issues that are at the forefront of voters minds. Such as whether the next James Bond should be woman (with or without a penis presumably) :
And whether Geronimo the alpaca should die:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-alpaca-geronimo-death-b1901049.html?amp
On other less important issues, such as the Tory welfare cap, Starmer prefers to sit on the fence:
What did Reeves say that the labour movement could get behind? She's on the other side. She picks up a 2k rise and everyone else gets a clap out of respect. Not fit to be the shit on my shoes.
FFS you’re meant to be the LABOUR party you vacuous media shrill. (And I’m not a fan of Marr at all.)
She could’ve considered addressing inflation by talking about ruptured supply chains and how Labour might improve that by not encouraging a model based on off-shoring everything. How the BoE increasing interest rates and making money more expensive is not good strategy for rampant inflation caused by supply constraints. How we can always afford to pay public workers good wages in the face of all that they’ve done for us
But she doesn’t because she won’t point out the market has failed us. Small state free market economy is a myth. There is no economy at all without the state underpinning it. The market cannot support itself.
If capitalism fails to work the government can change it to make it work for the majority of people.
Natural Labour territory.
Are you really expecting the shadow chancellor to start talking about all that on the Andrew Marr show, from what you've stated above you're expecting her to push out a blueprint for how the UK should ditch capitalism and become more of a socialist state, and all this at a time when the UK have to deal with making trade deals and ties due to Brexit?
you’re expecting her to push out a blueprint for how the UK should ditch capitalism and become more of a socialist state
You don’t think we have enough capitalism? Maybe we need a few more homeless and kids going hungry before the Labour Party will motivate themselves to change something?
We have capitalism, it's not a unit, it's a system, and i can see poverty, homelessness and hungry children in socialist countries, the same as capitalist countries.
How would you go about changing 'capitalism' to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
Socialist countries? Where dat den? Even cuddly capitalist countries like Holland and Finland do so much better. Despite a dreadful leader, Hungary has a pretty good Gini coefficient. The LP is kin worse than hopeless.
FFS the next general election won't be socialism v capitalism.
It should be.....social democracy v neo-liberalism.
But Starmer will do his darn hardest to make certain that it won't be even that.
I am sure that he will succeed.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all
Is that a serious question? I wouldn't change capitalism, I'd change democracy. Make it more transparent and accountable to working people rather than the interests of big business and the super rich. I'd reduce the centralised representative nature of government and devolve power to the lowest practical level to give people a stake in their communities and allow them to feel empowered and listened to. Do that and capitalism would change itself, because the rich would no longer have power over everyone else, and the rampant and indefensible inequality in both wealth and power that exists today would be vastly reduced as a result.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
Limit the rise on energy prices to 4% in the same way France has?
Workers on the boards of companies in the same way Germany has?
A cap on executive pay linked to average pay in the company?
Get ****ing homeless people off the street and into homes?
I could go on for hours as could you and most of our suggestions would be popular with 95% of the country... but for some reason it never happens.
Yeah, Socialism isn't up for discussion for me, we'd have to actually have some assets within the country to make it even viable, or funds, neither of which the UK has at present.
As for Social Democracy v Neoliberalism, that's been the case since Corbyn was in power, he was too much on one side, now Starmer is seen as too much the other, if Labour don't fix that then the next election will just be about what side of labour gets the most safe seats to start the whole battle for the next election after another failure.
Judging by my "mates" whatsapp group which never gets near politics the energy price rise is going to do for the Tories.
Also I saw on twitter that the fixed term parliament act has been binned so maybe soon.
Starmer is shit (I think he answered the above question well enough) but he can still win the next election. I think he will.
Genuinely not sure I can vote for him and if I do it will be a vote against my local Tory **** MP Alun Cairns rather than a vote for Starmer or Labour.
we’d have to actually have some assets within the country to make it even viable, or funds, neither of which the UK has at present.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership. They did it with the banks in less than a week. They could also create as much money as is needed to solve intractable problems such as poverty and homelessness. They did that temporarily when the pandemic started. No one was asking where the money came from, least of all the labour party.
Also I saw on twitter that the fixed term parliament act has been binned so maybe soon.
It never meant anything anyway. It was just a pointless gesture to keep the libdem muppets happy.
The 2/3s to overrule the fixed term had the fatal flaw that a simple majority vote could always replace it.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership
Instead they sell the National Grid! Why dont Labour attack the Tories on their lack of patriotism? It is an open goal imo. Stop trying to out flag shag them FFS! Just point out all the infrastructure they have sold to foreign companies. Do it every chance you get!
I could go on for hours as could you and most of our suggestions would be popular with 95% of the country… but for some reason it never happens.
Because most of the voters in the country are happy to substitute that list with things that benefit them and their families, add to that the core tory voters and you're not going to do much in terms of rerouting funding.
Most folk in the UK want a fairer system, they want to eradicate homeless, poverty and healthcare, but then when the options are put in front of them, they tend to vote for comfort.
Because most of the voters in the country
Which voters would they be? If you’re talking about the 28% of eligible voters who voted tory in 2019 then I wouldn’t call that ‘most’.
How would you go about changing ‘capitalism’ to better benefit all, without of course causing the exact opposite?
“Limit the rise on energy prices to 4% in the same way France has?”
>80% of all electricity in France is generated from Nuclear. Around 50% of the UK’s electricity comes from burning gas. The cost of nuclear is relatively static - has gone up 8 fold.
As an aside, the reason the UK’s own share of electricity from Nuclear fell through the floor is because Labour policy from 1997 to 2010 Was to refuse permission for any replacement nuclear power stations.
So the example of France is kind of irrelevant for the reasons set out above - the “supply” cost there hasn’t changed whereas it has here.
With a number of nuclear plants in the Uk scheduled to closed by 2020 and a lead time of 10-15 years on major civils / power projects the reason we are in the current mess is down to poor decisions in the early 2000s.
The UK govt could pass a law tomorrow to bring strategic infrastructure and business into public ownership. They did it with the banks in less than a week. They could also create as much money as is needed to solve intractable problems such as poverty and homelessness. They did that temporarily when the pandemic started. No one was asking where the money came from, least of all the labour party.
We're not the US, our currency isn't that strong, and Brexit, the bank crisis, etc has weakened it to the point of where we are now, any messing about with QE will make inflation go higher, any public ownership discussions will end up with a lot of upset foreign owners, and their countries of origin.