Forum menu
Quite frankly I f****** despise him, possibly even more so that Johnson.
That's an odd attitude conveying perceptions so distorted there's no point in engaging.
Starmer was a good DPP and is an okay bloke by accounts I've heard. Okay he's not fired up the public and I couldn't call him an inspirational leader of the opposition but the Labour party at least seems to have stopped self-destructing after the hijack of recent years. Chances of being in government - which would be a so much better government than the joke that we have - should be much higher, but have increased.
“we want to kill off private renting”
I should have known that anything said on here is taken pedantically and literally. When I say 'destroy the rental market' I'm not talking about removing it completely, I'm talking about massvely reducing the power of landlords to hold renters to ransom. Of course we need a rental market, but it needs to be balanced. At the moment it's tipped massively in favour of landlords who use it as a free lunch. That free lunch has gone on long enough and it's time it was removed.
Housing is the single biggest issue that impacts people both financially and practically. It should be natural labour territory to bring in a host of radical and popular policies to sort it out. Of course they won't because the Daily Mail won't like it. Instead they'll frill around the edges and keep it quiet to keep the establishment happy, and all the people who would enthusiastically support it won't even know it's a policy.
It should be natural labour territory to bring in a host of radical and popular policies to sort it out.
They have, they want to increase taxes on people's income from unearned sources.
They have, they want to increase taxes on people’s income from unearned sources.
By how much though? And what are they going to do with it? That on it's own isn't going to bring down rents or get first time buyers on the housing ladder.
So again, what are just the first two policies you’d like to see that you think would pass a sniff test of the electorate then?
You know in the Sunak thread you are supporting my position.
They have, they want to increase taxes on people’s income from unearned sources.
It's not a policy that will shape society. That's just Labour's fiscal responsibilty noises.
(I'm not saying don't do it. But don't kid yourself reliance on wealthy people is needed to pay for things.)
You can keep him, I want to get rid of him.
You just want to get ride of Johnson and don't have a strong opinion of what ought to be replace him that would make a considerable difference to society?
(I assume you mean get rid of Johnson and the Tories - or just Johnson?)
‘The state’ developed the horse and cart?
You know I was referring to the former part of your comment.
Matt Forde is looking for help in developing humour?
Ah – we should stick with our lying, self-obsessed, corrupt PM because the LOTO isn’t QUITE to our tastes, I understand. Glad I popped in, suddenly everything makes a lot more sense.
No one said that.
But I don't want him / and the Tories replacing with Starmer either.
It's quite possible to hate Johnson and know what was coming and not really want Starmer/Labour either. You can hold those beliefs at the same time.
You are downplaying Labour's miserable attempt at progressive party politics by suggesting they're not quite to our tastes.
So again, what are just the first two policies you’d like to see that you think would pass a sniff test of the electorate then?
Honestly I don't want to bore people away with what I've written here time and time again.
You said it all in the Martin Lewis thread - ideologically speaking.
Lewis might be famous for trying to be apolitical but he has said many times you can't just have a market and tinker with it. You either have a market and let it do its thing or you actively take control of it and make it fairer for the less well off.
No faux-Milliband price caps here please.
Look the state comes first in terms of creating money. Take that one fact on board and you will see how that Liberal construct that small-state low tax competitive markets have absolutely ruined the planet and carved up society needlessly.
I don't want more of that.
When Starmer gets his head around that I will be a believer. Until then he's part of the problem.
You just want to get ride of Johnson and don’t have a strong opinion of what ought to be replace him that would make a considerable difference to society?
Of course I do. And Starmer not matching exactly want I want doesn't change the fact that I'd rather have him as PM than Johnson. If you don't, that's fine... I absolutely don't agree with you... and I hope come an election enough people don't agree with you and choose to vote in a way that makes Starmer PM and makes Johnson consider leaving British politics entirely... he is a corrosive force, and to hear people who say they are left of centre sound happy to stick with him over having a Labour government is frustrating, for sure.
Rent caps are the norm across the world
the evidence says that rent controls have less then desirable effects outside the areas they’re implemented, and measured overall can raise the rents city wide by as much as 5-6% It also affects landlord behaviour by either increasing density, or by finding and converting to rental other properties not scheduled for rent capping
You know in the Sunak thread you are supporting my position.
I'm not arguing with you here either, I'm genuinely interested in what you think.
Of course I do. And Starmer not matching exactly want I want doesn’t change the fact that I’d rather have him as PM than Johnson. If you don’t, that’s fine… I absolutely don’t agree with you… and I hope come an election enough people don’t agree with you and choose to vote in a way that makes Starmer PM and makes Johnson consider leaving British politics entirely
I will go out on a limb and say middle-ground MPs create an angrier right-wing faction. So in pushing for Starmer you will probably get a worse Tory in charge.
I’m not arguing with you here either, I’m genuinely interested in what you think.
Man, I've written loads. I'm more on telling the truth of how the macro-economy works in countries with central banks. It's key to getting politicians to spend for the good of the community.
I'm for state intervention and big spending on (GND) infrastructure without the limitations of how do we pay for it. A job guarantee becomes the back-stop to inflationary pressure from government spending. I'm happy for experts to figure out where money and infrastructure is needed for society to be improved. Rather than the market. Keynes.
(BTW that's not the same as inflation we have now - which I agree needs different tools.)
I was very pro Corbyn on spending; but his and John McDonnell's main contradiction is they took the wrong economic advisors on board (Meadway et al) - and they sat the spending frame-work inside fiscally conservative restrictions. Wrong.
Yes, Corbyn was operating inside the same fiscal frame-work as Starmer. Doomed.
Broadband communisim is okay too.
Room for the private sector (phone contracts by way of light-hearted example).
I’m more on telling the truth of how the macro-economy works in countries with central banks
again, not having a go. Do you think this would stand contact with the press? the voters? Who’ve long been fed (what amount to) fairy stories and “understands” how the economy works?
Because how do you say to folks “all that stuff politicians have been saying for years is all nonsense; here’s the truth” without sounding like a politician telling folks a different fairy story?
So are we liking Starmer, tolerating Starmer or hating Starmer, just need an update before my next post ;o)
I think he's presently filed under the category 'worse than Hitler'
I'm not quite sure why, probably for being horrid to Jeremy, but he is
Carry on....
So are we liking Starmer, tolerating Starmer or hating Starmer, just need an update before my next post
file me under tolerating him. I can’t hate him, but he just sounds like a lawyer and every time he starts speaking regardless of how I make myself pay attention, I can’t for more than a few moments, and that’s not good really
I'd be happy to have him as PM. But he doesn't have what it takes to take Labour that far. He has my vote. Doubt he wants my advice... he's definitely not going to hear it... but he needs to present Labour as a team... more joint appearances and reference to others. The pandemic has made parties look increasingly like individuals working and speaking alone... and working against that, and the politics of personality, is Labour's only hope while he is leader.
Because how do you say to folks “all that stuff politicians have been saying for years is all nonsense; here’s the truth”
This is where labour need to be a bit political savvy. They start with the two major economic shocks of the banking crisis and covid and point out that the tories didn’t and never intend to ‘pay back the debt’. Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times. Then they can start proposing policies based on real economics rather than the fantasy that we have a national credit card.
Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times.
You could do that (I mean, it's true, but it's a hard correction to public understanding). Or you could point out that this is a time of crisis, and the government is adding to that with its policies. Supporting the less well off, and making society more equal, is linked to a better performing economy. Refusing to act to improve the lives of people who are struggling, in the name of shoring up the economy, is not just harmful to people's lives, but wrong headed economics.
Or you could point out that this is a time of crisis
They can say what they like, the point they need to get across though is that if not paying back the debt is good enough for the tories it’s good enough for labour. Instead Rachel Reeves is doing the opposite in saying that Labour will balance the books because the tories haven't. It's madness.
This is where labour need to be a bit political savvy. They start with the two major economic shocks of the banking crisis and covid and point out that the tories didn’t and never intend to ‘pay back the debt’. Once they’ve hammered that message home they then ask why if we don’t have to worry about the debt in times of crisis do we have to worry about it normal times. Then they can start proposing policies based on real economics rather than the fantasy that we have a national credit card.
Where are you getting the information that the UK government never intend to pay back the debt, the UK has a national debt of £2 trillion, and have to pay interest on that debt, and payments annually, i believe we're now at a point where servicing the debt costs us more annually than we spend on Defence or Transport, or many other departments.
We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.
Where are you getting the information that the UK government never intend to pay back the debt
The UK govt, that is all UK governments of all parties, has never ever paid back it's debt. The debt represents all the money in existence. Paying it back would suck all that money out of the economy and we'd have all out economic collapse. You need to read up on some economics, in particular how fiat currencies work. I'm sure rone will be along in a second though to explain it all. He does it much better than I do 😄.
Or you can just read this..
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/03/02/the-national-debt-paranoia/
Let’s hope Johnson stays in, then, right?
I don't hope for it, but it's what will happen because Starmer is a follower, not a leader.
The UK govt, that is all UK governments of all parties, has never ever paid back it’s debt. The debt represents all the money in existence. Paying it back would suck all that money out of the economy and we’d have all out economic collapse. You need to read up on some economics, in particular how fiat currencies work. I’m sure rone will be along in a second though to explain it all. He does it much better than I do 😄.
I understand that, hence why, if you read what i wrote, 'servicing' the debt costs the UK government upwards of £50 billion just now, the higher that debt gets, the worse those annual payments become, and the more in debt we get, the poorer the rate of credit is for what we borrow, which again drives up the servicing costs of that debt.
As for FIAT, we can print as much money as we want, but without actual value behind it the world market wouldn't really fall for it, and inflation would run riot, otherwise everyone would have been doing it throughout time, the US are about the only ones who can get away with it due to the dollar being a trading currency, and of course their presence on the world stage.
the US are about the only ones who can get away with it
Where did the money to bail out the banks and pay for covid come from? Has that ever been 'paid back'? No one is talking about 'printing as much as we want', that's clearly stupid. But neither are we 'paying back' the debt. The debt is just savings, and yes the government pays interest on that, if they didn't we wouldn't save, and if we don't save the government can't spend by running a deficit. So there's no need to worry about the interest we pay on 'the debt', it's all just part of the system.
From the link above which I guess you haven't read:
'The so-called national debt still has interest paid on it. But then so do bank deposit accounts. And they look pretty much like money too. Only, they’re not as secure (at least without a government guarantee in place) and so the government can pay less.
But let’s be clear what this means. The national debt is money that represents the savings of those rich or fortunate enough to have such things on which interest is paid by the government because it’s been persuaded to make that payment.
Let me also be clear about something else. Those savings are not in a very real sense voluntary. If the government decides to run a deficit - and that is what it does do - then someone else has to save. This is not by chance it is an absolute accounting fact.
Where money is concerned for every deficit someone has to be in surplus.'
Also the rate of interest on govt bonds is nearly always lower than the rate of inflation. Currently it's much lower, by about 5% depending on which inflation figure you use, so the govt is benefiting from the 'debt' being inflated away each year.
We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.
Didn't reply to this point before, but can you explain why the govt has to pay more interest because the national debt has increased? I don't recall interest rates going up simply because the debt had increased. Interest rates have gone up because the BoE is (erroneously) worried about rising inflation. It's got bugger all to do with the rise in the national debt.
Didn’t reply to this point before, but can you explain why the govt has to pay more interest because the national debt has increased? I don’t recall interest rates going up simply because the debt had increased. Interest rates have gone up because the BoE is (erroneously) worried about rising inflation. It’s got bugger all to do with the rise in the national debt.
It's like an interest only mortgage, but the house is now £2 trillion rather than £1.5 trillion, so the annual payments to service this are now 25% more.
The National Debt isn't linked to UK interest rates or the likes, it's the borrowings against UK Gilts/Bonds/etc, same as many around the world do, it's also quite a stable market for areas such as pensions to buy these, as they are less volatile than financial markets, and have a set return.
It’s like an interest only mortgage, but the house is now £2 trillion
Except the house is real, and the debt to the bank is real. The national debt isn't a real debt because it represents the money that exists in the economy. And it's much lower than the govt says it is, because they conveniently exclude QE from the balance sheet. Real debts have to be repaid. Repaying the national debt would be economic suicide.
The National Debt isn’t linked to UK interest rates or the likes, it’s the borrowings against UK Gilts/Bonds/etc
Bond yields are directly linked to UK interest rates, so the national debt by definition is linked to interest rates too.
and the debt to the bank is real.
Real ish 😉
pondo Full Member
I don’t come into this thread often as it’s so corrosively, depressingly toxic
Nah it's not toxic, it just includes opinions which you strongly disagree with.
If you want an example of a toxic thread click on the Boris Johnson thread.
More than a third of the electorate vote Tory. Some of them ride MTBs. And yet despite over 10 thousand posts you won't find a single one, certainly not in the last 6 months, supporting the current Tory PM.
Why? Because the environment is far too toxic for anyone to feel they can freely express their support for the Tories and the current PM.
The only opinion which is tolerated on that thread is one that expresses total and undying hatred for Johnson. Even expressing a dislike for Johnson is not considered good enough and won't be tolerated.
As a consequence there is no meaningful debate, just a massive slagging off extravaganza too toxic to allow the slightest diversity of opinion.
We have gone from a national debt of around 80% of GDP pre COVID to about 105% post COVID, so for the next few years we will have to pay increased interest to service that debt.
Yeah and the estimates were 120%, and we've been at 270% - so what? And what follows is a massive industry expansion.
Measuring national debt as a percentage of GDP is a pointless exercise in a modern economy that has gone through a pandemic.
The aim should be a balanced economy - if that takes lots of government spending then so be it.
A balanced economy should included a fully mobilised workforce, good rates of pay, good conditions, high standard of living for most, investment in public infrastructure. Etc.
Using just numbers to report on the state of the economy doesn't describe how the country might have benefitted from such spending
Increased interest is irrelevant and being inflated away. (That's not the same as inflation not being a problem.)
As Dazh has explained we don't pay the debt back like you think. It's just becomes a running total of money not yet taxed back.
The currency issuer never has a problem with paying its obligations.
The attention should always be on real resources and labour. Everything else is just numbers used to bash people over the head with.
Pre-pandemic we were almost in recession - without government spending we would definitely by in deep recession by now. So we've at least delayed it for the time being.
That's the power of money creation utilised for the benefit of the population. We were paid to stay at home help reduce the spread of the disease.
Post-pandemic It was always going to be a choice between people being unemployed, recession and a ruined economy or government spending, supply-side inflation with a larger national debt.
Where else do you think the money is going to come from?
Although technically the national 'debt' didn't increase due to broadly the same amount of Q/E as spending. But they keep Q/E from the ONS balance sheets when being reported. Imagine that the source of government money is not included.
Completely misdirected to keep all the media excited.
Your daily reminder that when we spent 400billion for the good of the country there was no increase in tax burden on the UK to pay for it. (It was 'funded' indirectly by Q/E)
Changing the subject slightly, here's another massive open goal for Starmer. Will he tap the ball in the net by proposing a simple ceiling on student load rates, or not? He could be really brave and abolish them altogether, and this was wildly popular at the 2017 election, but I think he's already ruled that out with his 'balancing the books' nonsense.
https://twitter.com/Effy_Yeomans/status/1514161937814274049?s=20&t=B3GGJLmA8XOnAUhUTg_ZGA
but I think he’s already ruled that out with his ‘balancing the books’ nonsense.
No he hasn't ruled it out at all. And he really could not have been clearer about his views on student loans:
Sir Keir said: "Labour must stand by its commitment to end the national scandal of spiralling student debt and abolish tuition fees. We lost the election, but we did not lose our values or determination to tackle the injustice facing young people going to university.
"Under the Tories, tuition fees have tripled and young people are leaving with university with nearly £60,000 worth of debt. Let’s be blunt: we need to end the scandal of spiralling student debt.
"Young people cannot wait another four years for a Labour government to tackle this issue. That is why I would urge the Chancellor to use next month’s Budget to invest in the next generation by restoring maintenance grants for students in further and higher education."
Worth a read as regards tuition fees, and also how Starmer warned about exactly the kind of damaging economically illiterate approach that Sunak & Johnson are right now pursuing after declaring the pandemic "over"... damaging all our futures, but especially that of the young...
No he hasn’t ruled it out at all.
And does anyone actually think he'll stick to that promise? I'd put money on this being quietly dropped in then next manifesto.
Worth a read as regards tuition fees
Fair enough but I don't trust anything he says so I'm not going to take his words at face value. Will save this link though and come back to it when the manifesto is out.
And does anyone actually think he’ll stick to that promise?
Dunno. He is currently calling Boris Johnson a liar and a hypocrite and claims that "Britain deserves better, which of course it does. What do you think?
What do you think?
I think he thinks that Britain deserves a more serious, technocratic and competent PM, but that's about it. He doesn't seem to think Britain deserves more progressive policies, better public services and ultimately a better quality of life for working people. On all that stuff it's basically more of the same with some nice PR to make people feel like it's better.
I mean I agree, we do need more honest, serious and competent politicians, but if they don't change anything then it makes no difference who is in the govt.
Labour already have more progressive policies than the government, and we're still years out from a full published manifesto for government at a general election. But there's no point directing you to cases of Starmer explaining policies, because you'll just say...
...I don’t trust anything he says so I’m not going to take his words at face value.
But there’s no point directing you to cases of Starmer explaining policies
Well if you are going to post on this thread you might as well post the links where Starmer 'explains policies'.
To claim you won't because Daz says he doesn't trust Starmer is a poor excuse.
Mistrust of politicians is fairly widespread. Even if people don't trust politicians it is still reasonable for them to expect policies explained to them.
They can then judge whether to believe them or not.
Follow the link I posted for a few points of policy difference between Labour and the government. It's a start.
Mistrust is normal. I can't say if current Labour policies would survive contact with the reality of government, or even make it into a manifesto that is years away from being written, anything could happen in that space of time.
I can’t say if current Labour policies would survive contact with the reality of government
Surely any commitment and policies they make now has to be made with "the reality of government" in mind? Isn't that the point of offering the electorate fully costed commitments?
Would you accept "the reality of government" as an excuse for broken promises from a Tory leader?
Surely any commitment and policies they make now has to be made with “the reality of government” in mind?
There isn't a general election coming up, they won't be in government any time soon, by the time they are (or at least we get a chance to vote to put them in office) anything could have happened. God knows what semi-self-imposed hole the UK will be in by then. Never mind what will happen elsewhere in the world.
Isn’t that the point of offering the electorate fully costed commitments?
I hope that'll be in/with the next general election manifesto. Unlike the other UK wide parties, Labour had a good go at doing that at the last two general elections. The other parties don't even bother any more.
Would you accept “the reality of government” as an excuse for broken promises from a Tory leader?
Tory policies change near weekly.
There isn’t a general election coming up
Yes there is - in a couple of years time.
Do you think that the period between general elections should be treated as a holiday by opposition parties?
The government will use that period to pass legislation and provide governance. It is the role of the opposition to scrutinize and where they feel it is appropriate to offer alternative proposals.
They are not on a five year paid holiday.
Mistrust is normal.
Starmer only has himself to blame: he reneged on his leadership manifesto so why should we believe what he says,
Do you think that the period between general elections should be treated as a holiday by opposition parties?
The manifesto won't be fully formed 'till the election campaign. Otherwise, why not publish one now, and not revise or add to it all when it comes to the election?
Starmer looks pretty busy to me. I have no idea what your "holiday" thing is about.
Worth a read as regards tuition fees
He seems reticent to discuss the fact that tuition fees were both introduced and trebled during Tony Blair's leadership of the party. There's also the recent statement from Labour condemning the environmental protestors and calling for their prosecution, which is a huge red flag for me.
IMHO Kier Starmer is not the right person to lead the Labour Party, and I won't be voting for them while he's there. Right now if you voted Labour I think you'd get Tory Light, but with perhaps a little less incompetence.
I shall vote Green again at the next General Election, with a tactical Lib Dem vote in the upcoming local authority elections.
The manifesto won’t be fully formed ’till the election campaign.
Who is talking about "the manifesto"?
It is perfectly reasonable to expect Labour to have policies now which we can expect to be included in the next manifesto.
That firm commitment by Starmer to oppose student loans which I posted earlier on this thread thread was made 4 years before the next general election.
What are voters suppose to base their decisions on in local and by-elections if they are expected to know the policies of the government but not that of the opposition parties?
Starmer looks pretty busy to me.
Most people would disagree with you - go out and ask the average punter.
On many issues which might be seen as contentious the silence from Starmer is almost deafening. On the issues which the media are piling into the government/Johnson Starmer enthusiastically joins in after the media has done most of the critical reporting, and lazily offers no alternative - because the next general election is "years away" according to you.
None of your defence of Starmer stacks up Kelvin. But then we both know that what you are really providing is excuses for his obvious ineptitude.
a huge red flag for me
Very concerning, for sure. I agree with you on that one 100%.
Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light
Things might be different in your seat, but here, not voting Labour helps one of the Tory MPs with the worst of voting records to retain their seat. Again.
What are voters suppose to base their decisions on in local and by-elections
Neither can result in Labour being in a position to change student fees, or anything else decided by the UK government.
Once again, I have no idea what you want other than a very tedious and nebulous “debate”.
I only pointed to some policy comments by Starmer. I would hope they inform the next general election manifesto, which if Labour won would be mostly put into action. I can’t make promises on behalf of Labour.
Once again, I have no idea what you want other than a very tedious and nebulous “debate”.
There is no need to attempt to personalise this. It is not a question of what I want. Criticism of Starmer and his inability to offer alternative policies is widespread.
If you ask Joe Public they will typically tell you that they have no idea what Labour stands for. Which presumably helps to explain why all the opinion polls of the last couple of months suggest that Labour would fail to form a majority government if an election was held.
Although no doubt the Mets decision to issue Downing Street with fines will at least temporarily change that.
Btw Kelvin if you find criticism of Starmer on a thread about Starmer tedious just remember that you aren't obliged to make excuses for him. It is something which you choose to do.
>> Skipping over all the criticism of Starmer I’ve posted in this thread <<
Labour has policies. No, they don’t have a full manifesto. Yes, policies might change, even significantly, before the next election. No, I don’t think Starmer is the right person to lead Labour into the election, and I think he should be replaced with someone less lacklustre and forgettable. If he is replaced, Labour still won’t win an outright majority at the next election. Conservative support in England would have to completely collapse for that to happen. I want the UK to have a Labour PM rather than a Conservative one (the only two realistic options), and if by some miracle of good fortune Stramer got to be PM, I would welcome that. And Labour still has my vote while he is leader.
Flaperon
Free Member
Worth a read as regards tuition feesHe seems reticent to discuss the fact that tuition fees were both introduced and trebled during Tony Blair’s leadership of the party. There’s also the recent statement from Labour condemning the environmental protestors and calling for their prosecution, which is a huge red flag for me.
IMHO Kier Starmer is not the right person to lead the Labour Party, and I won’t be voting for them while he’s there. Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light, but with perhaps a little less incompetence.
The last, and current protests by Just Stop Oil aren't helping their cause, it's badly planned and badly timed unfortunately, 100% agree with what they want for the future, but in planning, to aim it at football games, or terminals to reduce the movement of fuel is only ending in one thing, disruption to the general public, the government rub their hands at this, they can look strong, and give the public a scapegoat.
Just now is the perfect time to get JSO and others to sit at the table, have the professors they link to provide data for the labour manifesto or planning, again, timing wise, Ukraine has put a lot of strain on this, and it could be used for future good, i.e. getting in deep with renewables and pushing the reduction in our oil usage.
As for voting for Starmer is tory lite, not voting for him is full fat tory, i just can't get my head around so many labour supporters, or tory haters having such a negative thing for Starmer, christ get into power first, then work out if he's the right man, otherwise it's another decade of sitting on the sidelines shuffling the pack every so often, with no threat of actually doing anything.
i just can’t get my head around so many labour supporters, or tory haters having such a negative thing for Starmer, christ get into power first, then work out if he’s the right man
Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think "Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he's the right man"?
If so you must have had an extremely low opinion of the PLP.
Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think “Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he’s the right man”?
If so you must have had an extremely low opinion of the PLP.
Yeah, to be fair to you, that's a good response, Corbyn was a hard sell to me, but against a Boris, i would side with the less depressing side, and hope that the balancing would happen during parliament, as it would be there that a lot of the battles over the manifesto promises would happen.
Did you have the same attitude with regards to the previous Labour leader? Did you think “Jeezus stop criticising him because the alternative is full fat Tory, just get him into power first, then work out if he’s the right man”?
So many middle grounders own this.
It's also the idea that we were sold we couldn't trust a genuine Labour MP, and that now we should trust what I believe is a disingenous Labour MP that has been played as the right thing to do.
The bar is so low that anything slightly north of Monster Munch is considered a quality snack.
It’s also the idea that we were sold we couldn’t trust a genuine Labour MP, and that now we should trust what I believe is a disingenous Labour MP that has been played as the right thing to do.
I'd say if he was disingenuous then he'd be doing a lot more playing to the left, it would be an easy game to play to avoid all the fracturing going on with unions, MPs, etc.
Right now if you voted Labour I think you’d get Tory Light
You live in a system that rewards FPTP, voting Green (and this is not aimed at you specifically) will get you a Tory govt because that's how the system is loaded to give you. Your choices are;
Tory - You can hope for slightly right of centre, but their pressure groups are to the right of them
Labour - You can vote for slightly left of centre, their pressure groups are to the left of them -and have the policies you want to see enacted.
Those are your choices- anything else - any belief system you may think is better - is just pissing about.
it would be an easy game to play to avoid all the fracturing going on with unions, MPs, etc.
I am sure that Starmer feels confident that the more right-wing and indistinguishable from the Tories he becomes the more likely he is to get wealthy backers to bankroll him. So I doubt that he cares about upsetting trade unions. In fact all the evidence suggests that he doesn't.
I'm not sure what you mean about the fracturing going on with MPs, I can't remember a time when the PLP were so solidly behind their leader.
I have no idea what "etc" means so can't comment on that. You might be right on that one.
christ get into power first, then work out if he’s the right man
I base my opinion on the last few years of Starmer in opposition, where he's singularly failed to call out Johnson on his worst policies.
He needs to make a decision too on what he's going to do about the Speaker tolerating and supporting Johnson's lies and evasion in the Commons. A stronger person would have called this out.
You live in a system that rewards FPTP
I'm no longer convinced it's possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system. I've voted against them every time since I was old enough to vote and they've yet to lose. There comes a time where you've got to say **** it if we can't get them out then we may as well send a message for what matters to us. So I probably will vote green next time too since net zero is the single biggest issue to me and we're not doing enough. It helps that I've moved from a marginal seat to a safe labour seat that's consistently voting in green councillors though
I’m no longer convinced it’s possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system
Given that the Tories have enacted policies to make any regional elections that aren't already; FPTP, I'd tend to agree. BUT. Labour also support FPTP and aren't looking to change it (despite it's members wanting it, it was the Unions that killed it at conference last year)
So again, Our (if you don't want a Tory govt) choices are simple. Vote for the party with the strongest chance of defeating them nationally .- That's labour.
The only party that's even within sniffing distance of the policies most posters to this thread want is Labour.
End.
I’ve voted against them every time since I was old enough to vote and they’ve yet to lose.
Obviously I don't know how old you are but the Tories have only won 2 elections in the last 25 years.
I’m no longer convinced it’s possible to oust the Tories whilst fptp is our system.
Sorry but this is defeatist nonsense. labour came within a few thousand votes in marginal seats of unseating the tories in 2017. We've since found out that labour MPs and staffers spent a lot of time diverting resources from those constituencies as well as undermining the leadership so it's not difficult to imagine what a united labour party with bold transformational policies and an honest, compassionate and inspiring leader might achieve.
That's what Starmer offered when he stood for the leadership and is the main reason he's leader, but unfortunately he's shown that everything he said and promised back then was simply a ruse to gain the leadership and allow the right to purge anyone from the left from the party. If Starmer is going to unseat the tories he needs to focus attention on them rather than fighting the left of his party. I think we all know where his priorities lie though.
Tories have only won 2 elections in the last 25 years.
To correct my factually incorrect comment I have just realised that the Tories have only won 2 general elections since 1992, so that will be 30 years then.
Although I can fully understand why some people might feel that we have had Tory majority governments for the last 30 years.
It's almost as if we have.
Something changed in about 2010 though, didn't it... and we're still sliding... almost like having a Tory PM isn't such a good thing for the people who suffer most from Tory policies...
https://twitter.com/localnotail/status/1513583903814131713?s=20&t=ePVsu9tT7-smmJABbhbqiQ
That's probably a useless graphic to use as it shows how successful and widely used the Trussell Trust has become over that period through increased food banks, support via partnerships and donors, volunteers, etc.
Yes, the increases must be about something other than the increased need/demand created as a result of the policies Tory PMs have preceded over... put it down to anything else... any straw you can clutch onto... Rees-Mogg would...
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/908334935097868289?s=20&t=68mNyQAKX51-O2Y9r22cSA
Something changed in about 2010 though, didn’t it…
Yeah the LibDems totally discredited themselves by going into government with the Tories, helping them to implement appalling policies including vicious austerity which caused 50,000 extra deaths, thereby giving the Tories a leg up to form the first Tory majority government in 18 years five years later.
Whilst simultaneously overseeing the collapse of LibDem electoral support in every election since 2010.
That was good plan by the "centrists", wasn't it?
Yes, the increases must be about something other than the increased need/demand created as a result of the policies Tory PMs have preceded over
It's just using the actual data supporting the graphs you provided, the Trussell Trust has become a success for what it does and increased food banks, sponsors/partners, volunteers, etc, etc over the last 15 years, to point a graph like that and make it political is just not a good thing to do, it's easily ripped apart as there is absolutely no correlation with the year on year data.
The data that would better support the argument would be areas like the poverty line across several metrics, as there is good data and correlation of this data over the years.
the Trussell Trust has become a success for what it does and increased food banks, sponsors/partners, volunteers
True, but they're not "creating need" in doing so, they (and their volunteers) are stepping in to help people let down by a succession of Tory PMs. God knows how bad it's going to get under this one, as inflation, especially for the essentials of life, shoot upwards much faster than the pay of the less well off or the benefits available to them.
True, but they’re not “creating need” in doing so, they (and their volunteers) are stepping in to help people let down by a succession of Tory PMs. God knows how bad it’s going to get under this one, as inflation, especially for the essentials of life, shoot upwards much faster than the pay of the less well off or the benefits available to them.
Having it available creates as much need as any other factor, simple supply and demand, a decade ago what were people doing to feed their families without the simple availability of Trussell Trusts, were they borrowing from friends and family, local authorities, shoplifting or whatever,
The actual percentage of those below the poverty line hasn't really moved dramatically over the last 20 years, events have caused some fluctuations, COVID is having a huge impact, same with inflation, there's a lot more metrics available that cause concern just now for the foreseeable future than some dafty on twitter throwing up a couple of charts without any context.
Having it available creates as much need as any other factor, simple supply and demand
What do the Trussell Trust have to say about recent government action (and non-action)…
“Today the Chancellor has failed to create any security for people on the lowest incomes by failing to bring benefits payments in line with the true cost of living in the Spring Statement. This decision has created a real-terms cut to social security payments, which remain dangerously insufficient.
“People are already making impossible decisions between heating and eating, and we know people are skipping meals, unable to afford to run cookers and fridges and taking on debt to buy the essentials. This is not right.
“This decision will mean many more people will have no option but to use a food bank. By failing to make benefits payments realistic for the times we face, the government is risking turning the cost of living crisis into an emergency. People cannot afford to wait another year for this to be reviewed. Action to rectify this situation and strengthen our social security system needs to happen immediately.”
[ Trussell Trust ]
Increased use of food banks is being driven by government policy that is hitting the least well off. It is not driven by the Trussell Trust’s provision of help.
That was good plan by the “centrists”, wasn’t it?
I've absolutely no idea where we are going politically at the moment to be honest.
Everything is such a mess.
It used to be cold hard Tories v Labour working class stereotypes. Now it's so messed up we have forgotten what makes a country worth living in.
I fear I will never see what I deem to be a progressive government in my lifetime.
Got to be a lot of damage caused by constant exposition on social media, carving up thought processes.
However when things turn hugely bearish, that is often when the bulls take charge.
Increased use of food banks is being driven by government policy that is hitting the least well off. It is not driven by the Trussell Trust’s provision of help.
She's stating the current climate rather than the historical usage for the trust, those current issues are what i am pointing to as being better backed by factual data and can be correlated to the current government.
It's one of my pet peeves when i see someone throwing up a graphic, or quote out of context to suit their argument, it's how someone like Boris manages to win people over, remember £350 million a week on the side of a bus, those graphs have as much reality as his quote.
The context is... increased use of food banks. We all agree this has happened, yes?
My view (and that of the person using that graph) is that this is the result of government policy where the incomes (wages and benefits) of less well off people has not kept up with the cost of living (that has increased faster for that group than for those that are better off).
Your view is that the increase is is due to the "success" of groups like the Trussell Trust in meeting a need which you claim was already there, and need isn't really increasing... the increase in use is due to increased "supply", it's not supply being increased to try and meet increased demand.
I think that is summarised fairly. Is it not? Trussell Group also say it's the former. Rees-Moog agrees with you. Nothing to do with buses.
Need isn't increasing? The Gini coefficient shows that inequality has increased by 30% since 1979 and that has accelerated with current inflation and, for most people, austerity supported by both the Tories and Labour. Even the Mail and the Times etc are saying this. People can't live off platitudes.
Well I almost had an extremely close encounter with Sir Keir Starmer today.
Earlier I popped into the Italian deli at the bottom of my road, which I do almost daily. As I walked in the deli owner Giorgio instantly declared that I had just missed Starmer, apparently he had been in his shop for over an hour and a half.
Giorgio's deli is very near Croydon's trade union centre and he has quite strong links with the Labour Party which often use his deli as it has a few tables and chairs where you can have a coffee or a plate of pasta.
Today unexpectedly Starmer turned up with the local MP Sarah Jones, the Labour mayoral hopeful Valerie Shawcroft, a few others, and the press.
I am so glad that I missed Starmer. Giorgio is a good friend and he would have been mortified if I had had an altercation with Starmer in his shop.
I really don't think I could have resisted, or indeed that I should not have, pointed out to Starmer how hypocritical it is for him to call Johnson a hypocrite and a liar when he himself has broken every single solemn promise that he made when he stood to be Labour leader.
Furthermore two of Giorgio's customers have been expelled from the Labour Party. One for calling the council leader to resign over a £67M fraud scandal, and another for supporting the Palestinian cause on social media about 10 years ago. Obviously no one has been expelled from the Labour Party for their involvement in all those Croydon council scandals which have hit the headlines.
The only article I can find online about Starmer's visit to Croydon today is this badly written one. I have no idea why they call it a "cheese shop". Val Shawcross is standing for mayor, don't know why they say leader. The photo of Starmer is him standing in the deli doorway...... I walked through that door a little while later!
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/keir-starmer-we-need-earn-23696736