Meanwhile, back on Planet Sunak-and-Starmer:
>> Ruped in <<Taken up the Shard
Rupert Murdoch put in a fair bit of facetime at the Baby Shard last week while he was over for his London summer party. He’s had some very interesting meetings lined up on Floor 17 too.
Among the many people spotted stopping by to kiss the ring – separately, but on the same day – were Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer.
Clearly it’s for the leader of the country (and the leader-in-waiting) to go to Murdoch, not the other way around…
https://popbitch.com/emails/a-hot-wet-scoop/
Community owned by human society all over the world, wow.
Yup, until very recent history water has never been privately owned. It has been historically seen as a basic human need and access to it organised at community level. Wow indeed 🙂
The purge of the unbelievers is continuing.
Moving on to the centre left now.
Moving on to the centre left now.
So, they're not just applying the (stupid in my opinion) rules on supporting candidates standing for other parties to "the Left" then? So it's not a witch-hunt? Just a rule trying to stop people expressing support for other parties? It is a stupid rule though... an example... local green candidate stood aside at the 2019 general election, and Green members actively campaigned for their second choice, the Labour candidate, while still clearly marking themselves as Green not Labour members. Labour members should be able to do the same, where there isn't a sitting Labour MP/councillor do defend the seat and Labour are not well placed to take it. FPTP means that loads of people will be voting for a candidate for their second (or third) preference party... going all ostrich like and pretending that isn't the situation, isn't, as Neal Lawson put it... “grownup, progressive politics”.
isn’t water the original community owned asset in human society?
For thousands of years access to water was seen as a basic right of every individual and all necessary water infrastructure projects were provided by the wider community.
For thousands of years access to water has been a cause of war and conflict. First recorded water war comes in at about the same time as the first recorded anything very much. Okay 900 years after the first recorded anything. But I'll make the point that communal shared resources tend to have to be fought for, from the Urlama, King of Lagash's Gu'edena (edge of paradise) conflicts 4,500 years ago, to the Peckham Perrier riots of last year*.
https://www.worldwater.org/conflict/list/
*I might have just dreamed one of those.
For thousands of years access to water has been a cause of war and conflict.
Well water is a fairly vital resource so it should not come as a surprise to anyone that wars have been fought over access to it.
The issue is whether this vital resource should be under common ownership or private ownership. What should Starmer be saying on the issue, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of voters apparently want water and sewage nationalised?
So, they’re not just applying the (stupid in my opinion) rules on supporting candidates standing for other parties to “the Left” then? So it’s not a witch-hunt?
That is one very optimistic way to view it, the other is it is a witch hunt against all those who seem to go against the glorious leaders wishes.
For starters its a bit tricky understanding how tory defectors are welcomed in or indeed how Starmer was delighted to welcome back Gapes for example.
What should Starmer be saying on the issue, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of voters apparently want water and sewage nationalised?
Hang I know this one... Er, nationalise it?
(Would be my view, obv. As ever the difficult question, tho maybe not in this case, is not of what to do, it's of how to do it.)
Hang I know this one… Er, nationalise it?
Dunno, is that your opinion? Since you felt the need to bring up wars a few thousand years ago and presumably the more recent'the Peckham Perrier riots' I thought that you might be advocating a more aggressive stance.
So what was your point?
As we seem to be doing all the “joy of water privatisation” stuff here…
https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1674675855895715840?s=21
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thames-water-nationalisation-b2365943.html
Obviously you don't pay compensation for a failed company which has to be nationalised, temporarily or permanently, in order to protect its customers
Since Sir Keir Starmer claims to support nationalisation of water and it is only the alledged costs involved which are putting him off this provides the perfect opportunity for him to call for the permanent nationalisation of England's largest water company.
Starmer really has no excuse left not to support nationalisation in case of Thames Water.
Since Sir Keir Starmer claims to support nationalisation of water and it is only the alledged costs involved which are putting him off this provides the perfect opportunity for him to call for the permanent nationalisation of England’s largest water company.
Well then the man is an arithmetical dunce.
Because, currently his potential voters are paying for failed operations through their own pockets.
How can the government not afford it when a) they have their own bank and b) the supply and appropriations act says they once parliament decide they are to pay for something - it's happening like it or not.
Absolutely utterly commited in keeping us all down.
Parties of both sides desperately clinging to idea that there is no money for bullshit scarcity reasons at a time of looming meltdown.
Beggars belief.
Beggars belief
Not really, your ideas of how the economy works are fringe at best and crackpot at worst. Combine that with the fact the voting population are centre right and have been fed the household budget economic model for years and anyone with any political understanding would realise that shaking the magic money tree would be electoral suicide for Labour as people will assume its uncosted.
If your weird ideas really had a chance of working without tanking the economy someone would have tried it by now. Ok maybe not the Tories (but even then I think the conspiracies about their sole motivation to make the uber wealthy even more wealthy really over estimate the capability of politicans) but why would Labour not give it a go,do you really honestly think they want to continue the decline in living standards for the bulk of the population?
Amazingly there are some quite clever people in and around government. Your belief that they are all colluding to make working people poorer is proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory. You sound like an anti vaxxer.
Your belief that they are all colluding to make working people poorer is proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory. You sound like an anti vaxxer.
🤣😂 Yeah the belief that those with power and wealth want more power and wealth at the expense of ordinary working people is proper conspiracy nutter stuff!
It makes absolutely no sense at all that they would want to do anything like that!
It is a scientific fact that the super rich want to redistribute wealth in favour of ordinary working people.
If rone can't see that obvious fact he is probably an anti vaxxer too. Not worth arguing with.
So ernie do you count most of the Labour party in this group hell bent on concentrating all the countrys wealth in the hands of the few. I didnt realise most Labour MPs were part of the uber wealthy elite. Youre talking total cobblers, maybe youre also part of the tin foil hat brigade. As for Rone, your last statement is probably right, hes had it pointed out many times his ideas are far from main stream orthodoxy and its clear hes done his own reasearch. Arguing with a true believer is a but pointless.
Meanwhile that Keir Starmer, hes not Jeremy Corbyn is he, wonder if hes just playing the long game and letting the Tories continue to fail until he can get into power, maybe he does have a plan, hes just not sharing it yet with the public who arent resdy for it after years of being gaslit by the Tories.
maybe he does have a plan, hes just not sharing it yet with the public who arent resdy for it after years of being gaslit by the Tories.
Hopeful to the same sort of extremes as those tin foil hat wearers you mention...
Hopeful to the same sort of extremes as those tin foil hat wearers you mention
Maybe but I doubt it, there's plenty of things a 'normal' government could do but none of them are short term. We've tried radical right wing, look where that got us, radical left wing is equally nuts.
We need to do boring stuff like bringing the cost of housing down to a sensible multiple of income (make a proper effort to get house building moving and cap mortgage lending to sensible multiples of income) and get energy prices under long term control, renewables, renewables, renewables and that's not just massive generation projects but subsidising micro generation at home, generation and use at source means we don't need to spend as much to sort the unfit for purpose grid we have. We also need to ensure our government and regulators have teeth and are prepared to bite. Doesn't matter whether utilities are privatised or not they need investment. The water industry was in right state when it was privatised after decades of lack of government investment. We knew in the seventies pumping raw sewage into the sea was a bad idea, even then much of the sewage infrastructure was 100 years old.
If they wanted the private companies to operate and improve infrastructure that needs to be enshrined in law and critically enforced so that excess profits get taken away from the investors in fines not paid in dividends. There also needs to be regulation about how company purchases are made, the current private equity model is nuts. Its boring stuff but needs sorting, the last thing we need is a revolution.
maybe he does have a plan, hes just not sharing it yet with the public who arent resdy for it after years of being gaslit by the Tories.
Brilliant! After accusing others of being conspiracy theorists you come up with your own looney conspiracy theory! 🤣
I didnt realise most Labour MPs were part of the uber wealthy elite.
You think that you have to be part of the "uber wealthy elite" to be part of the establishment, support the existing status quo, and be vehemently opposed to change?
Why do think that the likes of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair who have huge influence in the Labour Party, certainly more than someone like Jeremy Corbyn, wouldn't want to serve the interests of billionaires?
Next you will be claiming that working class people can't possibly be Tories because they don't fall into the correct income bracket.
Youre talking total cobblers
That comment suggests that you are rattled. If I was talking total cobblers I doubt that you would feel rattled.
Your belief that they are all colluding to make working people poorer is proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
TBF it might not be the intention...but it certainly seems to be the outcome...
TBF it might not be the intention…but it certainly seems to be the outcome…
When Labour were in power poor people did not get poorer.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/labours-record-poverty-and-inequality
Your belief that they are all colluding to make working people poorer is proper tin foil hat conspiracy theory
That's a basic tenet of the current model of capitalism - both parties advocate.
Trickle-up is no mystery.
If I was talking total cobblers I doubt that you would feel rattled.
Rattled? Its a mountain biking forum and a political thread, it has no consequence. Anyway if you really believe the Labour party are there primarily for the interests of billionaires might as well give up now, certainly arguing on here will make zero differnce.
When Labour were in power poor people did not get poorer.
Did you actually read your link before posting it?
Just a quick cursory glance at a couple of paragraphs reveals :
the incomes of poorer working-age adults without dependent children - the major demographic group not emphasised by Labour as a priority - changed very little over the period. As a result they fell behind the rest of the population and relative poverty levels rose.
Those on relatively low incomes did a little better than those with incomes just above the average. However, those right at the top saw their incomes increase very substantially with the result that, on most measures, overall inequality nudged up slightly.
So yes under New Labour the government helped some of those on pisspoor wages by subsidizing the wages bills of tightfisted employers but the real winners were super rich.
Since Starmer is talking about "New Labour on steroids" we can presumably expect more of the same only more extreme...... the poor will be given extra crumbs whilst the super rich will be filling their boots.
Should we be impressed by that?
if you really believe the Labour party are there primarily for the interests of billionaires
I think many people would agree that the Labour Party abandoned its founding principles a while back - why are they even called "Labour"?
And I think many people, including possibly the majority of voters, see most Labour politicians, despite notable exceptions, for what they really are - self-serving careerists.
The credibility of politicians of all parties has never imo been lower than it is in 2023.
Not really, your ideas of how the economy works are fringe at best and crackpot at worst. Combine that with the fact the voting population are centre right
The only slight flaw with this fact is it isnt true. The voting system is rigged in favour of the right but thats not really the same thing.
Sadly though the glorious leader doesnt seem overly keen on addressing this and indeed seems happy to force out anyone who dares goes against his vision.
Not really, your ideas of how the economy works are fringe at best and crackpot at worst.
Lol, they're not my ideas. Crackpot - that the UK government has its own bank and spends through an act called the supply and appropriations act. And that the spending comes first in the Consolidated Fund. And the HMRC account never transfers funds to the PMG account. Crackpot that bond issuance is a throw back to gold standard. Crackpot that the private sector never bails itself out.
But 315bn of pandemic government spending in 20/21 with 450bn of Q/E in the same period says I know more about banking operations than you and Keir Starmer does.
In fact like all Starmer's bullshit on lack of money - here he is in 2020 validating the truth of government spending:
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1668645413555929093?t=x9JUknVqRRe37jkg1XngSw&s=19
Just another u-turn by the Centrist make it up as we go along camp.
here he is in 2020
Wow, it is hard to believe that this is the same man as the current leader of the Labour Party.
And he seems to say it with so much conviction!
Are you a 100% certain that it isn't a fake video?
I reckon handbrake-turn might be more appropriate than U-turn.
🤣
He's effectively endorsing the COVID spending because that's what was in the air at the time.
Short memories.
He was also speaking to a young audience and what Starmer claims to support depends on what he believes his audience wants to hear.
He also confirmed his strong support for the abolition of tuition fees.
"The opposition leader also confirmed that abolishing tuition fees remains Labour policy"
Obviously he has now decided that this is no longer Labour policy but he is putting all the blame on the Tories, which will no doubt be a reoccurring theme during a Starmer premiership...,.. when he made his previous commitments he had expected that the Tories would leave him a healthy economy. He has now discovered that this won't be the case.
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1676286395034247168?t=4L9R2BFrhg6tkA_cnNvJ5A&s=19
Centrist's remorse.
But but but how did we end up with these two lying right wing leaders?
No shit Sherlock.
It's called left wing solutions for right wing problems.
That poll isn't a "proper" weighted opinion poll from YouGov's panel: https://twitter.com/UrbaneSlave/status/1676381724593225728?s=20
YouGov's "proper" data does show some fairly poor performance by Starmer. It also shows 14% of people think Corbyn is an electoral asset and 56% think he is an electoral liability. So seems unlikely that Corbyn or anyone like him is the answer to Starmer's lack of dazzle.
As an aside, it's very hard to search and link data on the YouGov site.
Yeah I saw that tweet and also saw that he put 'if Labour can get the NHS off its knees' - whilst being a Starmer lovey.
Good luck with both those positions.
Stopped following "Stats for Lefties" a while back... about as reliable with statistics as Oliver Dowden.
The regular posters in here need to relax.
It's OK - a lot of folk like me won't be voting for Labour/Starmer at the next GE. In my case it is because of his shameful parroting of the lie that Brexit can somehow be made to work rather than his non-adoption of MMT-based economics.
But the effect is the same. Lots of us are realising we can't vote Labour at the next GE. For various reasons we agree that Starmer is not what we want him to be.
You heard it here first - don't vote Labour.
Fair play to the people who won't vote for Starmer. I voted for Labour under Corbyn in the last two GE's because it was more important to me to stop the tories than be 100% happy. Clearly I'm ideologically compromised though (as a scumbag centralist).
Hopefully people voting green/monster raving loony party or whatever won't allow the tories in.
I despise brexiteers too - but I'd simply rather have labour government than a tory one so I just have to put up with nonsensical 'make Brexit work' comments in the hope that we'll get tangible benefits when labour are actually in a position to change anything.
Maybe I'm naive but for me I'd rather have a labour government with Starmer in charge then a tory one with a random headbanger.
Maybe I’m naive but for me I’d rather have a labour government with Starmer in charge then a tory one with a random headbanger.
Clearly no easy answers but this type of thinking has got us to this type of choice.
It's a shame that people phrase the battle as between Labour and Tory as opposed to two Neoliberal parties because that's not really a choice.
It's damn easy to hate Tories but it's slightly trickier hold your own party at arm's length.
The whole hate Tory thing has been framed less on what they're about ideologically and more about being incompetent - which I think is more or less pointless and does nothing for changing policy.
Big picture is the economic system we have is designed to pull society apart and syphon money to the already wealthy.
That's needs rebuilding. Starmer is not going to do that.
My issue with the Centrist thinking is they claim the want change - but then spend all their time fighting change.
Carol Vorderman suddenly waking up to peak Tory is about as blind as it gets.
As an even more center right scumbag i also voted Corbyn as a protest against the disgusting Tory policies. Id be happy voting Starmer although i do wish he up the charisma.
Looks like the normal anti everything, idealogical purity or bust brigade are lining up to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Anyone remember the huge majority Corbyn gave Johnson?
It also shows 14% of people think Corbyn is an electoral asset and 56% think he is an electoral liability. So seems unlikely that Corbyn or anyone like him is the answer to Starmer’s lack of dazzle.
There is no evidence at all that Corbyn's lack of appeal had anything to do with policies, indeed that was Starmer's pitch when he was running to be Labour leader - Corbyn policies without Corbyn.
Starmer made a huge commitment to carry on with the same policies, they were the centre piece of his ten pledges which are still currently on Starmer's website:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
The only one of Corbyn's policies which is known to have put off probably millions of voters was the second EU referendum policy in 2019. When Labour didn't have that policy in 2017 they did considerably better.
Noticeably Starmer dropped the idea of another EU referendum in his 10 pledges presumably in recognition that it was the one Corbyn policy which was a vote loser.
And there is not necessarily a contradiction in approving of Corbyn and yet believing that he was an electoral liability as you seem to believe.
I fully approved and supported Corbyn's election manifestos but I am also acutely aware that he was an electoral liability, for several reasons including that the fact that a sizable chunk of the Parliamentry Labour Party was also going to brief the Tory press against him, smear him with accusations of racism etc, and generally do everything possible to undermine him.
You can't expect any leader of any party to be an electoral asset when members their own party is repeatedly stabbing them in the back.
This whole idealogical purity thing- you have the Tories running an economy with their own notion of market based idealogical purity - if you like, (centrists accept Neoliberal framing of the economy too) - so pushing back against that which ought to be a primary motive (especially because to the total shit show of privatised utilities) - shouldn't be met with howls of scorn.
It's a good thing to take a position against a system that has run the country down.
The amount of defense for Starmer's pro-Tory economic agenda is staggering considering the amount of hate put on the Tories themselves.
We will change the man but not the policy!
Looks like the normal anti everything, idealogical purity or bust brigade are lining up to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again
The problem is the ideological purity tag fits Starmer far better. Who despite seeming to have no real ideas or position is quite happy to purge those who disagree with his idea of the moment.
Remember he did originally have wide support in labour but that dropped off as he binned off all his pledges and then kicked people out of the party.
He has now got to the stage that the centre left guardian are getting dubious after he started extending his purges to the centre left.
Oddly enough if you tell people they arent welcome in the party the chances of them voting for you drop.
He could still possibly get my vote but the rate he is going it seems more and more unlikely.
Clearly no easy answers but this type of thinking has got us to this type of choice.
I would say No answers rather than "no easy answers". I don't want the tories and I wish Labour were more progressive. What is the answer, easy or not?
The amount of defense for Starmer’s pro-Tory economic agenda is staggering considering the amount of hate put on the Tories themselves.
This is what I don't entirely understand. The people who appear to despise the Tories more than anyone else on STW are invariably the same people who want the Labour Party to be much more like the Tories.
The only conclusion I have come to is that they see politics as some sort of game in which you hate the other team for being the other team. You cheer your team and boo your opponent for no reason other than you want to your side to win.
FFS they seem to despise ordinary voters even after castigating the Tories for apparently not caring about them!
You cheer your team and boo your opponent for no reason other than you want to your side to win.
Keir Starmer is the Sam Allerdyce of politics. Everyone hates his soul destroying negative approach to the game, but they still turn up to watch in the hope that one day he’ll do something different.