Forum menu
"I have no time for those who flinch at our flag. The cross of St George belongs to all who love this country"
If those exact same words had been written in an article for the Daily Telegraph by Liz Truss, and posted on the Liz Truss thread, she would have been mocked and ridiculed for scraping the bottom of the populist barrel and draping herself in the English flag.
However coming from Keir Starmer they suddenly and magically become words which express his righteous commitment to England, and voters need to hear them.
I would be more impressed with Keir Starmer's commitment to England if he spent more time arguing the case for English regional parliaments.
Waving the flag of St George proves very little of useful value imo. Although I won't deny that it is likely to impress a lot of Daily Telegraph readers, who these days appear to be more right-wing than the Daily Mail.
ernie, can't you have a word with him? That line of his is ****ing cringe, a little bit of me dies when he comes out with shit like that.
Political parties are a total farce.
It's no longer about fixing things.
For instance BoE is pursuing policy in the name of the current government to actively create more unemployed because higher unemployment is linked to lower inflation (yes it's idiotic and not supported by much - but this is what they believe.)
*And* at the same time Sunak is having his own little Tory war on the unemployed - to reduce unemployment.
So which is it - create unemployment to control inflation or get everyone back to work?
You absolute cross purpose dick-heads.
Removing the idea in the minds of voters that Labour are both anti-British and anti-English has been a long slow process
Some voters. Generally those who are fooled by the foreign owned right wing rags that wrapping yourself in a flag whilst selling the country off cheap and crippling our economy is patriotic.
Others who are actually patriotic might be concerned about the way he is aping those tories who hate the UK and just see it as something to trash for personal gain whilst waving a flag around.
"Long time Arsenal season ticket holder with a penchant for football hooligan culture so no suprise he’s directed his party to get the flags out for St George’s Day."
This is by far the most silly conspiracy theory ever - that Kier Starmer is courting the fascist vote because he (checks notes) buys an expensive season ticket for the most arse-acheingly North London bourgeois football club on the planet.
It is a bit extreme to describe Daily Telegraph readers as "fascists" but you do realise that the article which Keir Starmer allegedly wrote was designed to court them, don't you?
I say allegedly btw because I suspect that little of what Starmer says he actually personally believes. Undoubtedly most of it is decided by Morgan McSweeney. Starmer is the lawyer who puts forward his clients case, his personal opinions are irrelevant. Which is why he is able to change them with so much apparent ease - there is no real commitment to anything.
dazh
Full MemberI’m not in the habit of defending Starmer but he really had no choice. He’s spent 4 years (successfully) trying to remove the threat of brexit losing labour another election so wasn’t about to blow it all up at last minute.
Absolute rubbish imo. At the very worst, it'd have been a minor negative story for a party that is 20 points up
But realistically it's a missed opportunity. The tory official line on this is just a straight up lie, they made it about "free movement", but it's just not. It's visa based, it's time limited, you can apply financial and health insurance restrictions. It's about opportunity despite not having free movement. If Labour can't take a pointless and easy to refute tory lie about something that'd be good for british kids and make a win out of it, what are they even for?
Their actual response on it is pretty much incomprehensible, they waffle on about vets and opportunities for business and none of it's remotely relevant, they never attempt to say why they're against it. It just makes it look like they don't even understand the offer they're rejecting
The race to increase military spending is on and now the Tories have gone one better than Sir Keir Starmer with a commitment to not only match his 2.5% of GDP but pledging that they will increase military spending straight away.
Labour has said it would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP "as soon as resources allow" if it wins the election.
Downing Street said UK defence spending would increase "immediately and rise linearly" to hit £87bn by the end of the decade.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68880171
So everyone agrees it is very important that there should a huge increase in UK military spending the only question is how quickly this should happen.
It reminds me of the 2010 general election campaign when Labour agreed with the Tories that getting rid of the budget deficit was very important but that they would take twice as long as the Tories to do it.
Convinced by the Tories and Labour that clearing the deficit was very important indeed voters backed, unsurprisingly, the side which claimed they would do it in half the time.
Whenever Labour decide to sing from the same hymn sheets as the Tories voters seem to be more impressed with the Tories.
So everyone agrees it is very important that there should a huge increase in UK military spending the only question is how quickly this should happen.
My bold, not the only question. On what? Should also be a very clear question. Spunking cash on a bunch of ineffective shite to prop up an ailing and quite frankly unimaginative UK defence industry is not the best bang for buck.
My bold, not the only question. On what? Should also be a very clear question.
Big shiny things of course.
Maybe a couple more aircraft carriers or we could possibly ask the yanks if they would sell us some B-21s.
The dreadnought subs and new missiles sort of count but they cant really be shown off as easily.
My bold, not the only question. On what?
Lasers, rail guns and more display teams for the raf
Always plenty of money for the military.
What about the wrecked public finances?
Ah I see. Because that's what Labour's junior team are peddling in every interview when it comes to the climate, NHS and infrastructure.
There's no holes in the argument because there's no argument.
Labour has said it would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “as soon as resources allow” if it wins the election.
Downing Street said UK defence spending would increase “immediately and rise linearly” to hit £87bn by the end of the decade.
Those announcement are of nothing substantial. Man-maths based on GDP yesterday with a projection in 6 years time, we were already on 2.3% in 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/international-defence-expenditure-2022/finance-and-economics-annual-statistical-bulletin-international-defence-2022
Inflation by 2030 will suck ££££bn up (my man-maths, anyone maths-minded care to tidy that up?)
It's probably not enough. We should be preparing to help defend a fellow NATO country without the help of the USA... that's no longer just the stuff of dystopian novels.
Of course it's not enough, in the coming general election campaign expect both the Tories and Labour to argue that only they are taking the problem seriously enough.
It’s probably not enough.
Where's the money coming from though? How can we afford it? Serious question.
Ask the Tories.
Where’s the money coming from though?
National conscription for the unemployed and long term sick should help reduce the budget.
We can always afford whatever is available to purchase unless it's for the improvement of our state services then apparently has to be funded by the private sector.
Charlatans.
Look at the USA - just signed off on 81bn. No dramas.
Those announcement are of nothing substantial. Man-maths based on GDP yesterday with a projection in 6 years time, we were already on 2.3% in 2021
Other than apparent the state of the public finances according to Tory press release mouth piece Reeves.
These ****ers want it both ways.
Seems like an opportune moment to drag out Tony Benn..
Only one issue Daz - Centrists queue up to support money for war - the same arguments about lack of money evaporate.
Tory narrative leading the way.
Centrists queue up to support money for war – the same arguments about lack of money evaporate.
Well quite. Benn hits the nail on the head. Irrespective of the financial and monetary shenanigans involved in 'finding the money', the fact is when it comes to war the money can always be found, yet not it seems if it's for non-violent purposes. If ever there was an argument against the concept of nation states this is it.
A bunch of these previous "military spending increases" have been mostly about reshuffling. Lots of veteran healthcare and support that was previously under welfare became military, frinstance. (this is a very US trick).
TBH I'm not necessarily against it, if it's well spent, rather than on vanity projects and white elephants and privatisation and projects that would never have started if they'd been honest about the cost but of course all of military procurement is basically engineered around making the costs up until it's too late to stop, and changing the project scope endlessly so that it's almost impossible to be on time and on budget. We could do a lot more with reducing dysfunction than with adding money.
Seems like an opportune moment to drag out Tony Benn.
Pity it will be on deaf ears for Starmer.
Labour pledges to nationalise the railways in 5 years.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
I've lost track. Is this a new pledge to be rolled back on later or an un-roll back of a previous pledge (to be re-rolled back on later)?
Why would Keir Starmer receive a "lefty onslaught" for doing the right thing? Did he receive a lefty onslaught when he made the £28bn green pledge? No, not at all, in fact as I remember it the pledge was widely supported by the left.
Obviously if it turns out to be another pledge on which he performs a U-turn, which I think everyone can agree is very likely, I would expect him to be criticised - would that be a bad thing?
I found this comment in your link surprising:
The word "nationalisation" doesn't appear in Labour's plan, but that is what it in effect amounts to.
Why would Labour not use honest language which everyone clearly understands, especially as there is overwhelming evidence that rail nationalisation has clear public support, even among Tory voters?
Btw what the article doesn't point out is that the majority of UK rail services are already nationalised:
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
And let me guess when people respond to your passive aggressive stance you will then whine.
As policies go whilst an improvement on the tories approach, where although effectively nationalised we still have private companies in the mix just to pretend it isnt, it isnt exactly great or radical is it?
The obvious gap is with the Roscos which have been the main profit centre in recent years. Unless of course the contracts are going to be changed with them so they actually take the risk rather than the taxpayer.
An interesting critique here from the Guardian's transport correspondent, I have no idea whether he is a lefty (I have always assumed that the Guardian was the centrists bible) but he does seem to have a grip on his brief.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy
Like most centrists your obsession with 'lefties' borders on the unhinged. I suggest you point your cynicism in the other direction, it will be much more constructive and cathartic.
As for the policy, considering Starmer is only going to extend what the tories have already started it's very easy for him. I'm less interested in who runs the railways and more interested in whether prices are going to come down to something that looks like they are in Europe. When I can get a return ticket to London from Manchester for less than 50 quid I'll be the first to congratulate them on a job well done.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.
Frustrated Centrist sticks a headline up and expects no criticism 'cos it's got some lefty words in it.
“Labour pledges to nationalise the railways in 5 years.
Sits back and awaits the lefty onslaught as to why this is really a Tory policy, not fast enough, not progressive enough, etc etc.”
TBH, it’s a shallow pledge that will do little, but will placate those who think the Private Sector TOCs are making a fortune from the railways (they aren’t!). The headline figure is that it will save around £125 million a year. But it wont. There will still need to be Management running the Companies, so they will need to be paid out of the £125m saved, hence the savings will be far lower, if any at all.
All of the TOCs are currently ran by the DfT, so are already ordered what to do by the Government, the only private sector involvment is the Government pay the TOCs to run the Companies, rather than doing it themselves, hence some of the backroom staff are the only ones who will be slightly worried by this announcement, everything else will continue exactly as it was before, but with, hopefully, a slightly less subsidy to run the railways. In the grand scheme of things its a tiny drop in the ocean, when the railways cost the taxpayer around £11bn a year, £125m is nothing.
How to reduce rail costs? It needs total reform. Get rid of the DfT involvment, they are near to useless with their decisions. Get proper railway Staff running things. Stop outsourcing repairs and replacements - a massive industry has built up around railway infrastructure since the original privatisation at a cost far in excess of what the old BR would do it for (note the Railway is NOT privatised now, it is ran by the DfT, who employ private Companies to do some work).
When I can get a return ticket to London from Manchester for less than 50 quid I’ll be the first to congratulate them on a job well done.
Cheapest is £39 and average is £49 travelling tomorrow
My son daughter regularly come down from Newcastle to Manchester for £13.00.
Cheapest is £39 and average is £49 travelling tomorrow
Devil is in the detail. Firstly that's a oneway price not a return. Secondly it's a price based on only a few tickets left as they now use variable pricing. Just had a quick look for Saturday and the prices seem to be around £75 one way on average. There are cheaper ones (£42 one way) but that involves a change at Crewe on to a slower train which lengthens the journey by 1h 20mins. I'm talking about a return fare where you don't have to book weeks in advance or navigate the complexities of variable pricing algorithms via a multitude of apps and special offers. We should be able to rock up to the station (or at the least book it the day before) and get a return ticket for £50 or less. It's simply not possible.
Labour are at least promising that you can get the cheapest possible price at any one time rather than having to search around and have a degree in ticketing policies (presumably by standardising and simplifying ticketing policy across the network), but they've said nothing on what the prices will be, and that will be the proof of the pudding.
We should be able to rock up to the station (or at the least book it the day before) and get a return ticket for £50 or less. It’s simply not possible.
But that's not the case anywhere in Europe either. Despite the fact that Brits like to moan about rail fares, London -Manchester pre-booked for month in advance is about £30.00 (cheapest I found was £8.00) and Paris to Dijon pre-booked was 27 to 49 euros, next day prices £49 and the same French route was 84 Euros on TGV and still 49 Euros on slower routes .
I think you can ask that rail fares are similar to those in Europe (which they broadly are), I think its fantasy to hope that they'll ever be half the price of similar journeys.
I think you can ask that rail fares are similar to those in Europe (which they broadly are)
In which case I'm misinformed because everyone I know who lives in Europe or has used rail services there tells me they're much cheaper than the UK and much more reliable. Are you saying that's not the case?
I think its fantasy to hope that they’ll ever be half the price of similar journeys.
Well then I guess everyone will carry on driving their cars everywhere and we should accept all the environmental destruction that causes. We need (much) cheaper rail travel, and nothing Labour are proposing is offering that.
We need (much) cheaper rail travel,
I agree we need much cheaper travel, and those are [less frequently used] inter-city prices, and commuter travel, I agree with you, need subsiding. I think prices have gone up everywhere haven't they? fuel costs, cost of living, inflation all these things are as true in Europe as they are here. The Railways in Germany (for instance) have having the same sorts of problems we are, strikes (more pay) cancellations, costly journeys etc etc. I think back in October last year DB (German rail) cancelled something like 80% of all intercity rail journeys, was in the news I'm sure.
I think back in October last year DB (German rail) cancelled something like 80% of all intercity rail journeys, was in the news I’m sure.
That might have been the case on strike days, but not for the month as a whole.
IMO we shouldn't be talking about reducing the rail budget as the highest priority for rail travel. We should be talking about big improvements in the rail service to give people more transport choices (whether they be commuting or for social journeys), to contribute to a greener energy future, and to better plan link up so that trains become part of a complimentary transport infrastructure rather than having different transport modes competing against each other.
In Germany they have the Deutschland ticket, which will allow you to travel on all "non high speed trains", trams and buses in Germany for just 49 euros a month.
https://int.bahn.de/en/offers/regional/deutschland-ticket
I agree we need much cheaper travel, and those are [less frequently used] inter-city prices, and commuter travel, I agree with you
TBF the London-Manchester example was just a random one. A better one as you say are commuter prices or regional intercity prices. It's now £14.50 for a peak open return from Todmorden->Manchester, which is a 25 minute journey. Manc -> Leeds is £28.40 and £23.40 Manc -> Liverpool. These are all places which people should be able to commute to and from affordably but these prices make it pretty much impossible for anyone on a normal wage. It's no wonder the M60 and M62 are car parks.
“In Germany they have the Deutschland ticket, which will allow you to travel on all “non high speed trains”, trams and buses in Germany for just 49 euros a month.”
TBF that is a reaction to the fall of rail use after covid/Ukraine, and has been extended from the original 3 month trial at 9 euro. It is a Direct Debit thing where you have to subscribe, but it seems easy enough to cancel if you only want one month. I can see their point, if trains are running only half full, reduce the fares to get them full, revenue may rise slightly, certainly station areas and shops will be busier. They havent given any details on how much it is costing them yet, I think it is losing money, as some bus services wanted to pull out of the scheme.
I’m not sure it would work over here, our trains can be busy at any hour of the day, so no incentive to get more people on the trains. (Actually, the DfT are actively discouraging some train use, they are reducing services,and the size of trains on some routes, so people will be using other forms of transport rather than being in a packed/standing train. In the past, if a TOC had a full service every week on, say, a Wednesday,it could add another coach or two to that service. DfT managment does not allow that now.)
In many areas of the UK, train use *is* down... and services have been reduced to allow for this, rather than using pricing to get people back.
An "all in" ticket is a great idea, except it's hard to pair that with using pricing to shift demand from busy to quiet times.
Anyway... nationalising the operators one by one seems a good path to public ownership to me... hopefully then higher investment can follow without it leaking out to shareholders and cross subsidising other countries' rail transport.
Next... water please... back in public hands using the same slow one at a time take back... if we're going to have to put big money in, via bills or subsidy... let's also take back control...
water please… back in public hands using the same slow one at a time take back
Accord to labour a new government body would take over service contracts currently held by private firms as they expire in the coming years, how would that work for the water industry?