Why would I? I said that people support those nationalisations. They just don’t trust Labour when they propose carrying them all out.
They don't trust Labour to do it because they think it will be the 1970's all over again. A very high number of people who vote were around in the 70's.
You don't actually need to nationalise if you govern properly, i.e. set out exactly what a private supplier has to do, what they can charge etc,. while still having an element of competition.
If would take a lot of continued governance and effort which is never there and why it never works well.
You don’t actually need to nationalise
It's not really the issue here is it. Whether nationalisation is a good thing or not is completely irrelevant in the context of Starmer's interview yesterday.
When he stood to be Leader of the Labour Party he made a "pledge" that he was committed to the public ownership of public services, indeed his website still makes that pledge. Yesterday in an interview he claimed he wasn't in favour.
The British people deserve better. There is no point focusing on the Leader of the Tory Party being a liar if the Leader of the Labour Party feels he has a god-given right to lie as much as he feels is necessary.
The majority of British voters, including Tory voters, might be wrong for supporting the public ownership of public services, but they don't deserve liars.
Yesterday in an interview he claimed he wasn’t in favour.
No he did not. He said he did not favour one particular model of public ownership. There are many others such as the model used in Scottish water.
come on Ernie - I know it does not suit your narrative but you are usually very accurate with claims you make
The British people deserve better.
Not sure, a bit of get what you deserve isn't it. These MPs and governments are voted for by the British people. The British people where I live have voted in Desmond Swayne for 25 years with a vote share around 60-70%. Surely they are getting what they want otherwise they would stop voting for him and the tory party wouldn't they?
If you can't see that the British people deserve better than a choice between two different liars, then that is precisely the sort of apathy which has created the depressing situation which we have in British politics today.
The problem is Ernie the statement you are basing Starmer as lying on is innacurate
Its perfectly possible to be in favour of some form of public ownership without being in favour of what Starmer called " top down nationalisation"
Did you look at the Scottish Water example? its clearly public ownership, the structure is clearly not what we think of as "nationalisation"
Why will none of you address this point?
Not a fan but worth a listen
https://twitter.com/lbc/status/1483400025581531136?s=21
The problem is Ernie the statement you are basing Starmer as lying on is innacurate
Of course he's lying. Starmer's commitment to nationalisation couldn't be clearer and less ambiguous on his website, why doesn't he simply repeat what it says instead of claiming that he isn't in favour of nationalisation?
Or has the renowned forensic lawyer found weasel words to hide the clear and unambiguous pledge he made during an election?
Despite kerley's claim that the British people deserve no more than a choice between 2 liars because voters down his way apparently keep voting incorrectly, I expect more from the leader of the Labour Party.
And I'm frankly shocked that some people appear to set the bar so low for a Labour Leader especially when they keep whining about the Tories being liars.
Just to remind you again what according to Starmer's website his clear and unambiguous pledge is :
Common ownership
Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.
No mention of not being in favour of nationalisation in there.
Yes - and he wants a different model of public ownership. You keep missing the words "top down" which totally changes the meaning
Now look at scottish water - its in public ownership and not "top down nationalised" would that model suit you?
The problem here is not what Starmer has said - its that nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left, They want ideological purity .so they distort and partially quote him to reverse the meaning of what he says
there are many ways of having public ownership that are not "top down nationalisation" Scottish water is one model. there are others.
nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left
That is simply untrue.
Many people on left were hugely satisfied by what Starmer said in his 10 socialist pledges.
Which is of course precisely why he said it.
The geezer is a charlatan and a fraud. So much in common with Tony Blair. It remains to be seen if Labour voters still feel that they have no alternative but to vote Labour, whoever the leader is.
Ernie - have you looked at scottish water? Its in public ownership but not "top down nationalised"
Why are you unable to see that "in public ownership" does not mean " top down nationalised?
Its unusual for yo to be so inaccurate and to take a deliberate distortion of what he said as the truth
there is no lie here. You can both be in favour of public ownership without being in favour of top down nationalisation
The problem here is not what Starmer has said – its that nothing he says will satisfy folk on the left, They want ideological purity
When did TJ's account get hijacked by binners?
Damn - I posted from the wrong log in - rumbled 🙂
When did TJ’s account get hijacked by binners?
I don't bother posting on this thread any more after belatedly reaching the sad conclusion that TJ stated. There is simply nothing he could ever conceivably do that our resident brothers in arms of the left would deem to be acceptable.
So theres not much point discussing it really, when the conclusion is always the same
Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.
NO SURRENDER, COMRADES!!!
Carry on.... 😀
I don’t bother posting on this thread any more after belatedly reaching the sad conclusion that TJ stated. There is simply nothing he could ever conceivably do that our resident brothers in arms of the left would deem to be acceptable.
So theres not much point discussing it really, when the conclusion is always the same
Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.
NO SURRENDER, COMRADES!!!
And yet last week you posted on this thread on several occasions.
Among the stuff you posted last week you slagged off Starmer for apparently being incapable of taking on Johnson. According to you that appears to be partly because he isn't working-class, presumably unlike you, bruv.
This what you wrote :
Boris clearly absolutely hates having to face Angela Rayner. She’s everything he can’t cope with… working class and female.
With Starmer he juts bats away any questions, ignores what he asked and then rambles on about vaccinations, whereas Rayner seems to completely scramble his radar. She looks like she knows this full well and is enjoying every second of his obvious discomfort
So according to you a working-class lass does a better job of challenging and holding to account a Tory Prime Minister than a privately educated forensic lawyer.
But if anyone else says it you get into a rant about lefties and class warriors??
I agree that you post less than you previously did on this thread binners, but I think that has more to do with the fact that some muppet keeps reminding you what you previously said. Which must be really annoying as it invariably seems to be a complete contradiction.
Shame really as I have always enjoyed your illustrious rants.
Someone get the fire extinguisher!
Can this football cliches podcast appearance win over the doubters?
"I ask Starmer, a former shadow Brexit secretary and ardent remainer, whether Brexit is done and dusted. “Yes,” he says. “Look, we’ve left the EU. There’s no case for rejoining, so we have to make it work. We are out and we’re staying out.” So that rules out a return to the single market or customs union under a Labour government? “Yes, it does. We’ve got to make Brexit work from the outside and not reopen old wounds.”
Starmerdroid rules out a customs union.
That is more to one side than Corbyn's fence position for sure.
This guy is ruthless.
Idealogical purity trumps everything. Particularly electability.
You do hang on to this.
You have a government in power with a strong ideology. Electable and ideological.
Why you think Labour should give up on ideology to reverse damage done by the Tories is totally self-defeating.
(Btw there is no such thing these days as ideologically pure.)
You have a government in power with a strong ideology. Electable and ideological.
Strong ideology? Is 'opportunism' an ideology? Surely, this weeks 'making it up on the hoof' certainly isn't? Boris can change a policy position, mid-sentence.
Labour went into the last two elections on a strong idealogical platform and was defeated twice absolutely walloped the second time, yet you want to go into the next election with all those same policies in place because St Jeremy had them engraved by some socialist god on tablets of stone?
but I think that has more to do with the fact that some muppet keeps reminding you what you previously said.
Ernie... mate... I didn't bother replying to a post of mine on a previous page that you'd trawled up from, by my estimate, 6 years ago? It's not lockdown any more, comrade. You are allowed out of the house. When you're trawling back 5-6 years through the absolute horseshit that some northern nobhead posts on an internet forum, its surely time to take a long, hard look at your life, bruv, yeah? 😀
Anyway... back to 2022... In response to your Angela Rayner point, she always gets the better of Johnson at PMQ's, but I thought Starmer absolutely demolished Johnson last week. It was exactly the situation where that kind of lawyerly attention to detail works. I expect there will be more of the same today. He's already laid out which way he'll go: that Johnson is now on his third defence, with the first two blown out of the water
If Boris turns up, that is? I'm sure he's getting his excuses in already. He must know what awaits and he clearly doesn't have any answers
So according to you a working-class lass does a better job of challenging and holding to account a Tory Prime Minister than a privately educated forensic lawyer.
Rayner does better than Starmer against Johnson for sure, though I'm not sure for how much longer this interpersonal dynamic will be relevant. I really like Rayner. Maybe the time will come to start a thread where you can be disappointed by her too?
You could make a case for Starmer being working class, as the son of a toolmaker and a nurse, whose parents were fiercely labour and did not pay for his education, though he went to a selective school after passing the 11 plus (we made difft choices for our kids fwiw, not necessarily to their advantage). Though he's somewhat less working class than my wife, also a lawyer and try telling her she's not working class (something I have done for very risky thrills when feeling brave and seeing a clear path to the exit).
A "forensic lawyer" btw is generally one with expertise in forensic science.
Strong ideology? Is ‘opportunism’ an ideology? Surely, this weeks ‘making it up on the hoof’ certainly isn’t? Boris can change a policy position, mid-sentence
The Tories are free-marketeers and reductionists; the techniques used to arrive at the position are definitely fluid.
Mostly keeping the wealthy and the asset class happy is their driving force.
It's a strong ideology. It hasn't moved for 40+ years.
Labour went into the last two elections on a strong idealogical platform and was defeated twice absolutely walloped the second time, yet you want to go into the next election with all those same policies in place because St Jeremy had them engraved by some socialist god on tablets of stone?
The framing of Brexit created a no win situation. Boris was always happy to expell politicians to make it happen. Corbyn was not ruthless enough.
That doesn't mean drastic policies are not needed to correct what the Tories have done.
The previous manifestos were hardly that drastic or ideologically pure.
Basically you're saying society can never have what it needs because you're terrified of selling progressive policies to the electorate.
I mean at least JC had some stuff on a stone. I've no idea at all what Starmer's Labour is other than the cut and paste of Tory past.
But at least Labour do have the ace Wes Streeting talking up the private sector partnerships with the NHS in the face of the last two years 100% success rate of private contracts within the NHS.
Green bonds are go!
When you’re trawling back 5-6 years through the absolute horseshit that some northern nobhead posts on an internet forum, its surely time to take a long, hard look at your life, bruv, yeah?
You would have thought...... luckily it only takes about 30 seconds, 30 seconds well spent if only for the entertainment value!
All you need to do is to go to the Jeremy Corbyn thread and look at the first 3 pages to find posts from you claiming that all of Labour's problems are due to Tony Blair and how Jeremy Corbyn provides a breath of fresh air to British politics.
Have a go yourself, see how quickly you can find your old posts, I bet you could do in a matter of seconds, although I guess you would probably rather not.
You slagging off Starmer and focusing on the fact that he is not working-class was only 6 days ago, so pretty straightforward.
The thing binners is that I find your posts so fascinating and enjoyable that I read them with great diligence and I remember what you wrote long after you have completely forgotten, which I suspect in some cases is probably about an hour.
A “forensic lawyer” btw is generally one with expertise in forensic science.
And yet Keir Starmer proudly flaunts his alleged forensic skills on his own website.
He pledges, quote :
"Forensic, effective opposition to the Tories in Parliament"
Although binners has his doubts. Apparently it would help if the forensic lawyer was more working-class.
Check out Starmer's claim to possessing forensic skills for yourself :
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
It's pledge number 10 btw
Let the Tories in please.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1483768328107827201?s=20
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1483769996849422336?s=20
A “forensic lawyer” btw is generally one with expertise in forensic science.
And yet Keir Starmer proudly flaunts his alleged forensic skills on his own website
You're going to be shocked when you learn how criminal lawyers earn their money 🙂
Probably not as much as you were when you realised that it was Starmer himself who boasted of his forensic skills.
Let the Tories in please.
More crossing the floor please. And more importantly, more Tory voters swapping their vote to Labour. As many as possible.
Many people on left were hugely satisfied by what Starmer said in his 10 socialist pledges.
Yep. And voted accordingly.
More crossing the floor please.
If Wakeford had voted in the interests of his constituents and not supported every reactionary right wing cause pursued by the tories then I could accept his conversion. He hasn't though has he? He's only interested in one thing, himself. He stood as a tory, he voted as a tory, he is a tory. Starmer should have told him to do one. How this utter scumbag can be a labour MP but not Corbyn tells you all you need to know about Starmer's 'labour' party.
More crossing the floor please. And more importantly, more Tory voters swapping their vote to Labour. As many as possible.
This is the polling he was looking at. I wonder how many other Tory MPs are looking at something similar
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1483774295956496389?s=20
Vox populi, vox dei.
Eh binners?
Eh binners?
He doesn't post on this thread anymore apparently
More crossing the floor please. And more importantly, more Tory voters swapping their vote to Labour. As many as possible.
I'm sorry this is absurd.
You want treacherous members of the Tory party (with questionable values - in the Labour party?
If Wakeford had voted in the interests of his constituents and not supported every reactionary right wing cause pursued by the tories then I could accept his conversion. He hasn’t though has he? He’s only interested in one thing, himself. He stood as a tory, he voted as a tory, he is a tory. Starmer should have told him to do one. How this utter scumbag can be a labour MP but not Corbyn tells you all you need to know about Starmer’s ‘labour’ party.
Because any sense of decency is being drowned in the interest of trying to win an election.
Apparently ideology doesn't matter.
You want treacherous members of the Tory party (with questionable values – in the Labour party?
You want Labour sealed off from people deserting the Conservative Party? There is no better signal to people who have voted Tory that they can now reconsider voting Labour than MPs crossing the floor.
he stood as a tory, he voted as a tory, he is a tory.
Once a Tory, always a Tory? Please don't tell people who vote Tory that if you want them to reconsider their vote in future.
Where have you been the last few years?
But point taken. The symbolism however is huuuuge, the impact of this singular defection is enough, For those who stopped voting Labour under Corbyn this could be very influential and have more effect than any move the Labour strategy team could come up with.
The weird thing about some of the red wall intake is that they are neither as privileged or corrupt as your average Tory. As excited as they are about Brexit being delivered it has now been done and they can see that their own party leaders are completely incompetent of dealing with the consequences / fallout from Brexit (YMMV).
Starmers' dullness is now an asset, the whole nation is now looking for competence over charisma.
For those who stopped voting Labour under Corbyn this could be very influential
Let's hope. Johnson loyalists are saying it makes them cleave harder to him - which is what we want: the idealogues to seal themselves into their bunkers.
Though personally I'm disconcerted by such big shifts - tory to libdem I can get, or lib to lab - but if you're an MP you've some roots in a party and its way of thinking. And I'm about to be told it's not a big shift, I don't doubt. But it is.
(Oh and Starmer has forensic skills; is not a forensic lawyer. Neither very relevant to his leadership of labour. And criminal lawyers don't necessarily have criminal skills, though I guess they might. That's the life kicked out of that one and I promise to score no further points.)
You want Labour sealed off from people deserting the Conservative Party? There is no better signal to people who have voted Tory that they can now reconsider voting Labour than MPs crossing the floor.
The Tory party are sinking in the polls and you want to attract Tories to get more voters?
Call me old fashioned but maybe Labour could party could have decent ethical MPs and maybe just sell that to the public?
Once a Tory, always a Tory? Please don’t tell people who vote Tory that if you want them to reconsider their vote in future.
Don't be daft. There's an enormous difference between voting for a party/candidate and standing as one. Those who put themselves forward for office are subject to a much higher standard of consistency and probity than those voting for them.
Call me old fashioned but maybe Labour could party could have decent ethical MPs and maybe just sell that to the public?
You missed my late edit. I agree really. But I really want to see labour in power and a bit of teeth gritting may be required.
Yep, you're old fashioned rone.
I suppose the Labour Party could have rejected his application? I wonder what Jeremy would have done? Though that's a very hypothetical question.
