Windfall taxes are needed to prevent fossil fuel companies from keeping the money. And Sunak’s cunning loop holes that let Shell and others avoid them by investing in future extraction is a double whammy… “keep the money if you promise to help the world burn”… no thanks. Linking this to other taxation decisions, that are on people’s minds during local elections, is simple politics…
For the record tax the **** out of the rich.
Well, indeed. Not what’s currently happening though. And this campaign mentioning both windfall taxes and council tax is part of challenging that.
It’s just the same few people saying the same things, in the same negative tone, looping around and around.
And an ever dwindling number who jump in to try to defend the indefensible.
”Jumping” into this thread is dull and pointless. Part of that is down to Starmer. But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors. The thread that eats itself. No one even reads it now, never mind contributes.
But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors.
Possibly.
Although I don't see anyone on the opposite side who is actively enthusiastic about Starmer. The defense inevitably comes down to, 'Well, you just want the Tories to win, don't you, huh, huh??'
I think the number of people in the UK who are angry at Starmer would fill a bit more than a phone box.
People who are enthusiastic about him on the other hand...
Have we had any comments on the City result yet?
Makes you think....
an ever dwindling number who jump in to try to defend the indefensible.
Why would I when the four of you seem so happy and optimistic?🤔
Also, there's a limit to the number of times I can be arsed making the same points over and over. Whatever, politics should be boring. Bring on Starmer 😁
Have we had any comments on the City result yet?
Starmer is probably too busy smashing up trains or stealing Stone Island jackets or whatever else it is that confirmed football hooligans do.
I no longer believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and I don’t think I’m alone.
I expect that will be a major attack line for the Tories during the election campaign. Focusing on how he has repeatedly contradicted himself on previously stated positions, on all the major issues, will paint him as someone who is totally untrustworthy, which frankly he is.
I won't be difficult for the Tories to give voters a multitude of examples of Starmer saying one thing and then later saying the complete opposite. He will be portrayed as someone who will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear and will help him to get elected. Which of course was his strategy for winning the Labour Party leadership election.
The Tories have for a while been pointing out Keir Starmer's dishonesty and inconsistencies but it has been low-level stuff, I expect them to keep their powder dry mostly for the big push during the election campaign. No point flogging the line now so that it becomes tired by the time of the general election campaign and doesn't grab people's attention when they are in the process of making up their minds. Besides, as general election day approaches Starmer is likely to contradict his previous positions more and more.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/24/cant-trust-keir-starmer-master-inconsistencies/
Voters aren't comfortable with voting for the unknown, "better the devil you know" will resonate with them, and it probably helps to explain why John Major unexpectedly won the 1992 general election. Many voters will look at Sunak and at least feel that they know what to expect from him, rightly or wrongly they will feel that they can trust what he says, Starmer will not provide that reassurance.
I still believe that in all probability Keir Starmer will be the next prime minister, however I also believe that the Tories will in all likelihood do far better than they deserve.
Well, indeed. Not what’s currently happening though. And this campaign mentioning both windfall taxes and council tax is part of challenging that.
On such an insignifant level to be almost useless. People aren't loving the confusing time-travel council tax freeze.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1651891976982102016?s=20
”Jumping” into this thread is dull and pointless. Part of that is down to Starmer. But a big part of it is the endless doom looping about him by a barely phonebox filling cohort of detractors/distractors. The thread that eats itself. No one even reads it now, never mind contributes.
I don't find it dull and pointless really - just another thread.
I find the constant suprise of Tories acting like ****s dull and pointless - enough to make me more critical of the place the opposition have gone to not provide us with good solutions.
People who are enthusiastic about him on the other hand…
Yes it would make a change if people who nailed their support to the Starmer flag would get an opinion on what it means to carry on the very political amnd economic system that the Tories have thrived on but in Labour colours.
There's an inabilty to recognise policies make a big difference to people's lives as opposed to five million thoughts on expensive wall paper.
Whatever, politics should be boring.
Boring but never inspirational enough to make a real difference eh?
Also, there’s a limit to the number of times I can be arsed making the same points over and over. Whatever, politics should be boring. Bring on Starmer 😁
Indeed, Scandinavian politics is very boring. All they do is debate things because the system of government means that consensus between at least some parties is necessary to get anything done. This can go on for years and sometimes even decades for particularly contentious issues. Debate, compromise, debate, compromise...
That's how politics should be boring. Not a boring man with no discernible convictions being given a massive majority based on a minority of the vote.
Here's a challenge. Without mentioning the Tories, why are you so keen to 'Bring on Starmer'?
Scandinavian politics is very boring
Not sure I'd agree, considering the most populous Scandi country just elected a bunch of Sieg Heil-ing "reformed" fascists. That's a lot of things, but not boring.
That’s a lot of things, but not boring.
OK, so what has happened since the election.
https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/sweden/
They are in government (kind of), but their popularity is steadily declining. It' s the same pattern repeated across all properly functioning democracies where the anti-mainstream parties gain popularity by making promises and blaming immigrants. Once in power they find themselves limited in what they can actually do and people lose interest in them.
Contrast that with the UK where UKIP was able to stay an anti-mainstream party but managed to drag the Tories and hence Labour further and further to the right until the UK is where it is now.
So yes, neo-Nazis are in the Swedish government. And it's been just as boring as ever.
Labour are slowly losing some of the support that Truss gave them wrapped up in a bow… but still well up on before Starmer became leader.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1652001265021333504?s=21
neo-Nazis are in the Swedish government. And it’s been just as boring as ever.
Today's "boring" political news:
I think Kinnock lost the race for the 92 election approaching the last fence, by trying to be a bit too charismatic at that election victory rally they held... the day before votes were cast.
He'd done all the hard work, banishing militant and moving the party back from don't scare the horses territory to err.... scaring the horses.
"We're allll- rrright!!!!"
If you're boring, (like Starmer is) then for God's sake don't try to be charismatic. And stay away from beaches.
I think Kinnock lost the race for the 92 election approaching the last fence, by trying to be a bit too charismatic at that election victory rally they held… the day before votes were cast.
I don't think there's any evidence that the Sheffield rally cost Labour the election.
He’d done all the hard work, banishing militant
He didn't. It was when Michael Foot was Labour Leader that Militant was declared a proscribed organisation and its leadership were all expelled - nine years before the 1992 general election.
Any expulsions during Neil Kinnock's time as leader was of inconsequential individuals - their leadership had already been expelled and their newspaper, which was the gel that held Militant together, banned from sale at all Labour Party events.
The reason Neil Kinnock is often associated with the expulsion of Militant and not Michael Foot is because of one speech that Kinnock made at a Labour Party conference.
Yup, that speech.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653304050769698816?s=20
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653299817731301376?s=20
Truly a crap alternative to what we should have.
https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1653322579149504512?s=20
Where does the growth come from ?
He's playing the Tory hymn sheet again and again.
In Epsom we are fighting a massive housing development of the green belt.
Only a handful of Residents Assocation councillors want it.
Even the Tories are against it.
Now starmer has declared a war on nimbys and promised building everywhere.
The man is a colossal ****. No one in Epsom is going to vote labour.
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
He's done his absolute best for the public to cite - 'all politicians are the same.'
In Epsom we are fighting a massive housing development of the green belt.
The south east needs more housing. Where d'you propose it goes?
Where d’you propose it goes?
Not in their back yard presumably.
I was up in Newcastle recently visiting my folks. North of the city in the former green belt where before there were only run down former pit villages (one of which my folks still live in), there are new housing estates as far as the eye can see. Whole new villages/towns have sprung up along with new businesses, factories, retail parks and other things like schools and hospitals. Are the locals complaining? Are they bollocks! They're happy that someone is finally investing some money in their area instead of it being a post-industrial wasteland harking back to the 1970s.
No one in Epsom is going to vote labour.
Is he alone in his Tory wannabe ambitions or are the whole lot scumbags?
It's weird to identify the anti-NIMBY policy as "Tory wannabe" because it's the opposite of what the Tories have done. The Tories have just given up on taking control of planning law to encourage housebuilding because they can't be bothered to fight their own local parties and NIMBYs on this.
The south east needs more housing. Where d’you propose it goes?
No it doesn't. It needs a 100% foreign buyer tax so that British homes are for British people to live in not investment opportunities.
The cost of moving needs to be seriously looked at. When my mil in her 4 bed house looked at moving the sheer cost of it made no sense. She is better spending the £40k on heating and carers.
That's a family home that could be fully utilised not one that needs building on the green belt.
If people are serious about affordable housing, build them and sell them at cost.
Ps Epsom is the most densely populated borough in Surrey.
PPS we get grumpy enough when our trails have gravel put on them ,how do you think I feel about having housing estates put on them.
We need to build more homes. Doing something about empty investment homes is a good idea though. Not sure why UK citizens and companies should be allowed to deliberately leave homes empty though. Or sit on building approved land for decades as an investment asset.
Anyway I notice Starmer is doing his best to prove the points of MMTers everywhere. He's going to abandon his pledge to abolish tuition fees. Apparently we're in a 'different economic situation', in other words 'we can't afford it'. If ever there was something we can't afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it. But Starmer doesn't care about that, he only cares about not rocking the boat and perpetuating the myth that there is a limited amount of money to spend on things like education and healthcare. He's an idiot.
We need to build more homes
We also need to build the right type of homes.
I am curious how Newcastle managed to get all the facilities built out as well though. Round here we just get the homes without any increase in infrastructure. The only positive is since they are large "exec" homes not that many people move in.
Well, reframing what “affordable housing” is for developers, basically removing the requirement for them to be included in building programmes… there’s part of the “right type of homes” problem.
If ever there was something we can’t afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it.
Agree 100%
Anyway I notice Starmer is doing his best to prove the points of MMTers everywhere. He’s going to abandon his pledge to abolish tuition fees. Apparently we’re in a ‘different economic situation’, in other words ‘we can’t afford it’. If ever there was something we can’t afford to do, limiting access to education for our kids is it. But Starmer doesn’t care about that, he only cares about not rocking the boat and perpetuating the myth that there is a limited amount of money to spend on things like education and healthcare. He’s an idiot.
He's setting himself up for an almighty battle of "Growth" v "Fiscal prudence" v "Spending". You dumb-**** stop talking about growth in the same breath as generating taxes to pay for things. It's preposterous, vacant and incomplete politics - not recognising the UK on life-support economically.
Why are they so stupid and lacking in vision? Has 40 years of Thatcherism and beyond numbed everyone's heads?
I know it's not going to happen but I hope they get a bit of a wake-up call on May 4th.
Why are they so stupid and lacking in vision? Has 40 years of Thatcherism and beyond numbed everyone’s
heads?
It is like a mass brainwashing that has got to most people. The first thing any political interviewer on TV asks is "where is the money coming from" irrespective of what proposal is being discussed and nobody ever responds with a proper explanation on how it actually works.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it's an overcorrection to that.
TBF rone you've lost patience trying to explain the economic theories you espouse here to what is largely quite an educated audience. Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences? If not you're wasting your time. This stuff just doesn't cut through.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
"unpriced" sounds a lot like "where is the money coming from"
Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences?
Why does Brenda from Bristol need to know how the UK economy works. She just needs to know how society will be made fairer, how her quality of life could improve etc,.
Don't lie to her by pretending there is no choice to improve anything because we can't afford it.
This stuff just doesn’t cut through.
No one is suggesting the labour party should be lecturing voters on the mechanisms of govt finances. What they should be saying though is that abolishing tuition fees, better hospitals and schools and a well paid public sector workforce is not only affordable, but necessary and beneficial for everyone in the country. It's a simple message, be the party of proactivity and hope, rather than agreeing with the tories that the govt can't do anything or that it's not it's job to do these things. No one wants to vote for someone who spends all their time telling them why they can't do stuff.
What they should be saying though is that abolishing tuition fees, better hospitals and schools and a well paid public sector workforce is not only affordable, but necessary and beneficial for everyone in the country.
I have to agree with you again there Dazh.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
So what? So the opposite of doing stuff is not doing stuff.
Corbyn/McDonell didn't need to price their manifesto but they did (meadway is tax and spend) and if they'd hit half of their targets we'd be so much better off.
Just calling it madcap is a recipe to never make the big improvements we need.
All we need is people like you to make sure we don't get this stuff.
Madcap is what we got by the way.
TBF rone you’ve lost patience trying to explain the economic theories you espouse here to what is largely quite an educated audience. Are the labour party going to explain MMT to Brenda from Bristol in short words and three sentences? If not you’re wasting your time. This stuff just doesn’t cut through
Apart from the time when it cut through and a good chunk got a wage paid for by the government during 20/21.
And kept the economy from total collapse whilst protecting everyone.
You mean that stuff?
I'm here to talk economic details and pushback against lack of money that is all. More of us that get it more of us that can make a noise.
Unfortunately the last time Labour ran for election, its leader was firing off last minute, madcap and totally unpriced proposals (free internet for everyone!), so it’s an overcorrection to that.
We need infrastructure that reaches everyone, and everyone can use. Current course of action (pay BT lots of subsidy for leaving people/companies/communities with no/slow connections as they roll out new infrastructure at a snail's pace, and have a "market" where one large company, that was previously a publicly owned monopoly, can buy out any competitor that looks to be in position to undercut their prices at scale) isn't delivering the results for many areas of the UK. At least Labour proposed a way forward at the last election. Agree that it should have been in the manifesto, as "extras" of that scale that are announced as if thought up on the hoof make voters think that you're just listing "nice to haves" rather than announcing cohesive policy. Rubbish campaigning meant it wasn't given a chance by the pubic... but an interesting policy with merit IMHO. The charge of "not thought through" was too easily laid at the feet of Labour, with this and other policies.