Forum menu
Let’s be honest, the people vocally supporting the first tax rises on the rich are few and far between. Minor tax rises on wealthy individuals and companies has gone down like a bag of sick
Not only is that not true of the wider public it isn't even of the very wealthy themselves :
Nearly three quarters of millionaires polled in G20 countries support higher taxes on wealth, over half think extreme wealth is a “threat to democracy”
It is just a minority of voters, a minority of very wealthy people, the Tories, and the leader of the Labour Party Keir Starmer, who don't like the Idea of taxing the wealthy more to pay for better public services.
"Bring in taxes" ... taxes come in ... "No, not those taxes because..."
- Employers say they'll pass on the cost of taxes to workers
- The economy is going to shit, must be because of those taxes
Supporting hypothetical tax rises doesn't always carry through to support for actual real tax rises.
Personally, I think the government need to ignore the noise, and press on... increase spending now... increase taxes on wealth in future.
Because both are needed together... when the government put money into the system without raising taxes on the wealthy, they get wealthier and the divide between rich and poor increases, both in terms of money and quality of life.
“Bring in taxes” … taxes come in … “No, not those taxes because…”
Sorry to interrupt the argument that you appear to be having with yourself but all the research and opinion polls are very clear concerning which taxes we are talking about.
The two links which I provided makes that very obvious.
Personally, I think the government need to ignore the noise, and press on… increase spending now… increase taxes on wealth in future.
Agreed.
But this is wishful thinking currently.
Government doesn't understand what taxes do or why they should tax wealth.
All government's are terrified of taxation whereas if they got there economy growing as per their needs by spending - then tax can come later to stem inflation and sort redistribution.
I think this drive to 2% inflation is now of little use. This arbitrary number is causing everything else to fail.
Post-pandemic letting CPI settle to around 3% was fine. Doggedly aiming for 2 whatever the cost of daft. But central banks are hanging on as long as possible.
(The NI tax rise however is ridiculous and will cause chaos that is not needed.)
Agree on a lot of that. I think there are people in the government (and their officials) that understand the effect of taxation far better than you or me though. On the inflation target, I think 2-3% as a target is exactly what is happening in the UK, rather than 2% or lower, even if not declared. How that changes if Trump really does push or 0% in the USA I don't know... hopefully that's just empty nonsense, but who the hell really knows.
Agree on a lot of that. I think there are people in the government (and their officials) that understand the effect of taxation far better than you or me though.
Their recent plan to make military (non-operational) death in service benefits liable for inheritance tax would say otherwise.
Am I right to assume this effects the richest families negatively, and existing inheritance tax thresholds will still protect those service families who aren’t rich from paying any IT at all?
My mum is still gets a (small) pension from my dad’s service pre AFPS 75 (medical discharge), before you get any ideas that I’m against the state looking after the family members of those who serve, by the way. I’m not.
Labour MPs ordered to sink landmark climate and environment bill
^^^that's a private members bill from a lib dem. The govt usually opposes them. Most aren't debated and about one in two hundred become law, so not terribly meaningful .
so not terribly meaningful
Someone should perhaps tell Keir Starmer, he doesn't seem to know that. Apparently he is so worried that there is talk about a three line whip and disciplinary action against Labour MPs who supports it.
Most aren’t debated and about one in two hundred become law,
From the link which I assume you didn't read much beyond the headline :
Savage, the South Cotswolds MP who is also an environmental activist and a former ocean rower, came third in September’s ballot for private member’s bills, meaning she would almost certainly get enough parliamentary time for it to pass with Labour support.
Another poll out today places Labour in third place behind both the Tories and Reform, only this one is different in that it gives Reform a clear lead, not just tied with the Tories.
Voting intention: 22nd Jan 2025
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-22nd-january-2025/
What I find interesting is that in June 2016, when we were still potentially 4 years away from a general election, the Centrists were trying to stage a very public coup against the then Labour leader on the pretext that opinion polls were showing very little support for Labour.
In fact in June 2016 all the opinion polls were showing Labour support in the low 30s, about 2-5% behind the Tories.
Today we are 4.5 years from a general election and Labour are about 25% behind the combined Tory-Reform vote. And yet despite that the silence from the Centrists is deafening.
I think we can safely conclude that Centrists aren't really concerned about how Labour preforms in the polls, their true concerns are exactly the same as the Tories - to do everything possible to stop a left-wing government implementing left-wing policies.
They probably even consider the prospect of Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister to be more desirable than that. They are certainly not treating it with the same urgency.
I see Reeves has said “the country” needs some Trump positivity. I think she means that she needs more positivity but the real question is of all the positive people you could mirror why would you pick Trump as the example…
I don't think you can read anything about what centrists think from posting on here, I suspect many are just not interested in responding to the goading from a few posters and have taken debate elsewhere.
The goading is mainly coming from the centrists.
The tough decision further rigging the economy for the rich against the poor, the ass kissing fascism, the inability to call out genocide as ""living in the real world", the blaming the left for for the rise of the far right.
Your own comment above, nothing about policy, the events of the world we have seen over the past days or week, just a divisive comment that you blame on every one else.
A majority (64%) of people in the UK would be more likely to vote for a political party at an election if it was committed to higher taxes on the wealthiest to invest in the NHS and public services
That’s actually a very stark and worrying statistic if true.
64% of people want improvements but are not willing to to pay for it
Taxation should be fair across all spectrums of the population. Currently Labour are making the very poorest and the middle rich pay for it it would appear. Definitely appears that trying to get votes wins against trying to do the right thing.
And what is the centrist political ideology anyway, at best it seams the argument is that they will slow down the flood of money to the oligarchs, slow down the erosion of living standards, slow down the drift towards fascism, absolutely no offer of actually fixing the problems the status quo has created just the continuation of slow failure.
I don’t think you can read anything about what centrists think from posting on here, I suspect many are just not interested in responding to the goading from a few posters and have taken debate elsewhere.
I am talking about the behaviour of Centrist MPs today v the behaviour of Centrist MPs in 2016. Why would I expect any of them to respond to my comment on this thread?
Are you outing yourself as a Centrist MP Jon? 🙂
64% of people want improvements but are not willing to to pay for it
You have that arse about tit, that 64% realise they are paying the costs of the current system that only a few are benefitting from and that needs redressing in the economic model we are living under. The current economic model isn't having a neutral impact on peoples lives, assets have been inflating far faster than wage growth for 50 years, productivity has been rising faster than wage growth for 50 years, the numbers forced into the economic "underclass" has been rising for 50 years, the cost is high and is affecting each generation worse and worse.
64% of people want improvements but are not willing to to pay for it
People pay for nothing via taxation in this system. 90% of the current problems are attributed to this thinking.
And yes there is no appetite for taxation. So the solution is for the government to run that deficit first and make changes necessary or forever go downwards.
Come March Reeves will be again looking for more ways of trimming the budget on probably the vulnerable and removing more money from the economy.
You can't make it up.
Agreed, I'd be happy to pay more tax if I thought for a second I'd be getting any value at all out of it... as it stands, I pay tax and it goes into some parralel universe where public services actually work.
Centrism is getting many things back to front and supporting the institutions like the BoE to carry on paying interest to those with money.
The BoE paying interest is technically the same a running a deficit from a cash injection point of view. Only instead of paying to fix stuff for society you are giving money to those with wealth.
I don't think Centrist 'policy' exists. It's simple acceptance of Neoliberal 'policy' that things can be done better under the system we have rather than understanding the system we have is the problem.
This is why Reeves' is in a mess - she's saddled by her own restrictions due to misunderstanding of the economy. Being fiscally more prudent is actually less responsible when it comes to helping the vulnerable.
Prudent would be running that deficit, and telling the BoE and the 'markets' exactly what you're going to do and instructing them to get in line.
What's worse about our current situation is that as we go further down it will require more and more radical support to make it all happen.
Centrists incorrectly called this ideological purity back in 2017 - but the system Labour operate now is ideologically pure in that it can't escape it's walls of constraint it has put in place with the economy.
It's so so dumb.
Back to front.
64% of people want improvements but are not willing to to pay for it
it’s absolutely shocking that only 64% of people want improvement even when paid for by other people.
what do to other 36% want then? Even shittier services so long as the rich get richer?
The past 8 years in the US is a perfect example of how the system works.
Trump brought in tax cuts (95% that was focussed on benefiting the rich), then Biden came to power and created a small stimulus package, but with the privatisation of government services and not reversing those tax cuts the biggest benefactor of that stimulus was the rich rather than the those government services.
So we see government services limp along, assets inflate way faster than wages, living standards are eroded, economic inequality rises, false solutions and lies are the only alternative that is offered and the people who are suffering are just disillusioned and don't vote.
It is laid bare for everyone to see.
Oh do bore off, rone...or at least start a thread called 'everyone I don't like is a centrist'.
Oh do bore off, rone
I know that STW is Centrist Grand Central but how about not exposing yourself as being intellectually bankrupt with petty insults and instead come up with some sort of vaguely coherent counterargument to the points which rone makes.
Here's a good one, if it's not too challenging for you :
"I don’t think Centrist ‘policy’ exists. It’s simple acceptance of Neoliberal ‘policy’ that things can be done better under the system we have rather than understanding the system we have is the problem."
It seems a perfectly reasonable comment to me and if don't agree with it how about explaining why you think Centrist policy is any different to classic neoliberalism and why you believe there is nothing inherently wrong with a system, rather than trying to bully someone into shutting up?
Oh do bore off, rone
Wow imagine a world where being bothered about stuff results in minor jibes on a forum.
Not going anywhere really. Feel free to drop all the insults you want.
Centrists do need holding to account as they told us so much good stuff about Labour's trajectory.
I see many things Centrists love being taken apart anyway. Have you seen the regulator they've just tweaked on the CMA?
Ooof. Look it up.
And the usual suspects yet again prove that they can't engage in "grown up" political debate.
Any comment about the latest opinion poll which puts Labour third behind both the Tories and Reform binners, or are opinion polls now "so 2016" and no one cares about them anymore?
It will probably all turn out alright in 4.5 years time, eh? There's absolutely nothing to worry about Keir Starmer taking Labour down to a Liz Truss level of support! 🙂
Good to see the usual suspects take this thread the same way as every other political thread on here…
Stop doing it then.
Of course one reason for labours unpopularity is Europe. Many folk I believe lent Labour their votes in the hope as many expressed on here that he would pivot towards the EU one elected. Of course is ever hardening position on Europe is a real vote loser with once again polls showing a huge shift in the population towards Europe.
I haven't looked at the polls in detail but it's clear in the shift back to the SNP in Scotland
That post above should kill this thread as none of the usual protagonists want to mention or even see thr words brexit or EU
Why should it "kill" a thread where the subject is the UK government? Presumably you were expecting a reaction and are disappointed?
When I saw your comment yesterday "of course one reason for labours unpopularity is Europe" I didn't think that it needed to be urgently tackled. Because although I don't doubt that Labour is unpopular with you due to their stance on Europe there is no evidence that is true of the wider population.
In fact there is evidence to suggest the opposite, ie, it has nothing to do with Europe. The only political party whose popularity has increased substantially since the general election is Reform UK, a strange refuge for people nostalgic for the EU. And support for the most pro-EU main party, the LibDems, has remained completely static.
I suggest looking at other reasons why Sir Keir Starmer has taken his government to Liz Truss levels of unpopularity.
None soblund as those who will not see.
Pro Europe parties are up. Brexiterr ones down. The vast majority of the population want back in ASAP
Reform is taking votes from the tories. Lib dem green snp and plaid from labour
Pro eu parties are up.
You and the other main political commentators refuse to discuss this. The obvious elephant in the room
You try and pretend brexit has nothing to do with both the disastrous economic situation or the labour parties woes
That's why I said it would kill the thread. None of you from different directions want to talk about the elephant
Reform is taking votes from the tories. Lib dem green snp and plaid from labour
Not in the recent council by-elections. It was quite a mix but biggest swing was labour to conservative. Reform got very little.
You try and pretend brexit has nothing to do with both the disastrous economic situation or the labour parties woes
It has very little to do with this thread. This is the UK government thread and the UK has left the EU and has no current plans to rejoin. That's annoying but it's how it is
None of you from different directions want to talk about the elephant
I’m always keen.
The vast majority of the population want back in ASAP
Given the choice, perhaps they would.
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
That could also be true if Labour removed its “Red lines” (which you accurately describe as a hard Brexit position).
Economically, those “Red lines” need to go at some point. If they go before the next election, we’re in for another decade of instability and all that follows from that. So, here’s the rub… properly close ties could make things better for the UK… attempting to jump to that this decade could make them much worse.
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
When the polls say the opposite that moving towards Europe is popular and that is without labour trying to sell the idea
So somehow in your eyes a position that the majority want and would be a huge economic boost is a vote lower
As I said. None so blind
It has very little to do with this thread. This is the UK government thread and the UK has left the EU
It has everything to do with this thread. It is absolutely fundamental to the poor economic situation which is a cause of labours unpopularity and rapprochement is hugely popular and labour's refusal is costing them popularity
BTW. we still haven't finished leaving
When the polls say the opposite
No, they don’t. They show a warming to the idea across the whole country. How that is distributed across the country is a quite a different thing, and key to elections.
You and the other main political commentators refuse to discuss this.
You are not discussing it, you are just shouting the headline followed by insults, but I will have a go at discussing it and see how much you are actually willing to listen.
The same problems in the UK are being replicated across Europe, the oligarch driven right wing economic policies that are stealing any economic growth for the few and disadvantaging the many. With assets inflating at a far higher rate than wages it is driving up the economic inequality and driving down living standards. The same dogma across Europe and the UK is too increase growth, but without redistribution of wealth growth is actually making the situation worse not better, those that have are getting richer, those that don't have shrinking ability to buy even a few crumbs.
EU rules force government investment to be "corporatised" resulting again in increased corporate profits and inflating assets at the expense of decent wages for decent jobs.
The only real advantage of re-joining the EU in the current environment is freedom of movement, which is something I am all for and something I took advantage of before it was ripped away. But the major economic problems we face cannot be solved by going back into the EU, the world needs to change to a fairer distribution economy, and the EU like the UK is heading in the opposite direction.
The absolute submission of our governments to the wants of the oligarchs is the biggest problem we face at the moment, and the EU are no more tacking that problem than the UK are.
I am very pro europe, I think I have made that very clear over many years, but I also know that just joining the EU alone if it fixes anything, only fixes only a very tiny part of the problems we face.
biggest swing was labour to conservative. Reform got very little.
Yup, that is my understanding, ie that not a lot of Labour support is going to Reform. And since Labour has lost a considerable amount of support in the last six months, whilst the Tories have remained static and Reform support has increased massively, it suggests that Labour are losing support to the Tories whilst the Tories are continuing their trend of hemorrhaging support to Reform.
But whatever direction support is moving among parties it clear and consistent that about 47-50% of the electorate support either the Tories or Reform, all the opinion polls show that. It is quite an astonishing figure, the last time the UK government was this unpopular with voters Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak were prime ministers.
And when you consider that the Tories are led by Badenoch and Reform by Farage it doesn't suggest that rejoining the EU is foremost on voters mind.
Most of what is written in this Chat is an accurate reflection of facts or impact.
Labours unwillingness to access the only funding left (no gold, no oil,no deregulation) is taxation of wealthy people. Reeves reaction to the press around non dom taxation which is morally correct and a relatively small amount of money demonstrates the Labour fear of the rich.
Historically that fear wasn't as front and centre due to other revenue sources above. The wealth transfer in the last 20 years has also been a power transfer that allows the wealthy to influence successive government's. Priministers regardless of political position are held to ransome by the markets and the wealhy.
Not sure this is fixable i any meaningful way.
Some Labour dude and Tory dudette at the darts courtesy of the gambling industry but both quick to point out their support of prostate cancer awareness which was a theme for the event. ****ing sportswashing chancers
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
Unfortunately this is true.
There are huge areas of England (and baffling Wales) where seats would fall to Reform if that choice was given.
Unfortunately this is true
This is nonsense not true at all. It the myth shouted by wearhervane politcuans. And chancers. Its 4 years to the next election. Just think how public opinion could be changed by truthfulness from labour.
But the major economic problems we face cannot be solved by going back into the EU, the world needs to change to a fairer distribution economy, and the EU like the UK is heading in the opposite direction.
Rejoining the customs union would give an huge boost. Regaining some of what we have lost economically. Brexit has cost us hugely
That is answered in the whole post if you can be bothered reading it.
Unfortunately this is true.
Is it? We are told it extremely loudly and clearly but since it is by the same people who promised us the sunny uplands I have to have some doubts.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
So it's not surprising to me that this still continues.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
Yep, it was the first action of the tech bros manipulation felt in the UK, concentrating on brexit is actually the misdirection there is a far bigger war for hearts and minds going on, and we are losing.
Well people have been burying their heads in the sand for more than 8 years now to avoid addressing the motivations behind much of the Leave vote.
Yes they have been. Now personally I would start by seeing how brexit has failed to address those motives and then go onto that, just possibly, peoples correct grievances were abused by the brexiteer elite but maybe you disagree?
I believe people did and still are correct to be upset at the political situation and feel unrepresented. Pretending brexiteer elites didnt abuse that though seems counterproductive.
Lets ask why the sunny uplands havent appeared and dont allow the elite to use the excuse they were undermined.
Only on here do so called 'centrists' seem to get so much stick..I mean for those who seem to use it as a thinly veiled insult on a constant basis, what do you think the word even means?
For me, it means 'balanced' and 'moderate', but you'd be forgiven as a casual reader on here, for thinking it means the devil incarnate.
Centrists do need holding to account as they told us so much good stuff about Labour’s trajectory.
I mean, who are these mysterious and malevolent centrists you speak of?
I only voted labour to try and keep the tories out...I'm nor really impressed with starmers Labour so far, but I'll take that over conservatives/reform.
My default vote is liberal democrat, and I'll likely go back to that in the next Locals and the next GE.
exposing yourself as being intellectually bankrupt with petty insults
Calling me 'intellectually bankrupt' is a petty insult in itself, hahaha!
Bunch of berret wearing Ernesto "Che" Guevara wannabies. to coin a (un?)popular opinion, it really like 6th form common room politics on here sometimes. Make sure mummy washes your 'smash the system' t-shirts, and stay safe out there all!
“of course one reason for labours unpopularity is Europe” I didn’t think that it needed to be urgently tackled.
You may not, but for me, it's the single largest political issue in the UK right now, so it has every right to be talked about ina 'UK politics' discussion'.
You can't just pretend the EU doesn't exist, unless you are Corbyn, Starmer, Truss, Banedoch etc.
For me, it means ‘balanced’ and ‘moderate’, but you’d be forgiven as a casual reader on here, for thinking it means the devil incarnate.
If you decide it means "balanced" and "moderate" you do count as a "centrist" and so someone who doesnt understand your own biases and confuse your ideology with something balanced and moderate.
As a quick test do you think Joe Minchin is someone to vote for?
For the UK if you vote lib dem and figure you need to compromise then its unlikely you would be classified as the devil incarnate (the orange book nutters who screwed the libdems aside. For anyone who feels like disagreeing just look at the main paymaster for that lot and how now how is paying for gbeebies). If you think the tories and labour should serve you then you might have a problem.
In theory I am a centrist but in reality I think I am a minority and so it needs to be a compromise. The "centrists" dont tend to accept this.
In theory I am a centrist but in reality I think I am a minority and so it needs to be a compromise. The “centrists” dont tend to accept this.
We'd have to dissagree on the definition in that case.
The “centrists” dont tend to accept this.
I accept that and it's why I would call myself a centrist...
If we break it down into basic questions:
1) I think we should have an Army, police force and a judiciary - that makes me right wing by definition.
2) I think we should all pay tax to provide healthcare, schools, social care, etc... that makes me left wing.
Conclusion: If we take the average of the above then that makes me centrist.
Conclusion: If we take the average of the above then that makes me centrist.
Not really since even in your two statements you are confusing very different positions.
Your first one is basically anarchism vs authoritarianism. This is completely different from Left or Right. Anarchism can be either Left or Right and likewise so can be authoritarianism. For example Stalinism also ticks that box although if you go for Leninism its debatable (I would go for yes) or Marxism (as in Marx own view in which case I stick him in the no but also implausible).
Your second case you need to look at State Socialism adding Bismarck to the search term, Its tricky to say thats left wing to be honest.
Conclusion: Overly simplified.
Conclusion: Overly simplified.
I'd agree, terms like left and right actually mean very little to me, in this context. Political problems require the correct solutions.The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
Some 'ideal' solutions might be more left or right than others, some might be more authoritatian or liberal, so once you build up a big picture with hundreds, or even thousands of problems/questions, you end up with a great big and messy scatter graph that only has one common trend...
All those pretty little dots are mostly concentrated toward the center, rather than the extremes, hence the term 'centrism' I guess?
As a quick test do you think Joe Minchin is someone to vote for?
I have no idea who they are.. a quick google turns up an estate agent, A US senator, and a male model in the top results... so I wouldn't like to comment!
The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
Sometimes the correct solution benefits a small section of the population, but those in most need.
Both of these are too simplistic. Politics is necessarily chock-full of value judgements about what sort of costs and benefits we care about, and which people are deserving of them. Often this is disguised by proxy arguments about facts which aren't really the root source of the disagreement (which is why you then get denialism and the promotion of junk science). And sometimes, people just don't care about the costs, because of what they see as their principles.
I've had decades of experience of this in climate science. But see also, more recently, "sovereignty".
The correct solution is what benefits most people for the least expense.
So, at the risk of simplifying, utilitarianism? Which leads on us onto the classic transplant counter argument. You have gone in for a checkup and are perfectly healthy but are a perfect match for five patients needing transplants. Should we sacrifice you?
All those pretty little dots are mostly concentrated toward the center, rather than the extremes, hence the term ‘centrism’ I guess?
That seems a rather strong assumption which brings us onto.
I have no idea who they are
Lets go with the senator and how they are described as "moderate" and "centrist". See how much you share with them. Hopefully not a lot.
Lets go with the senator and how they are described as “moderate” and “centrist”. See how much you share with them. Hopefully not a lot.
I had a quick skim read of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Manchin - I would say I think he's a bit of a wrong-un, I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
Sometimes the correct solution benefits a small section of the population, but those in most need.
I'd agree with that, but simple questions... I'd like to think I'm not morally or 'intellectually bankrupt' enough to not see that nuance, I would hope it's implied - by way of if the least fortunate are given a larger, sensible helping hand that is disproportionate to those who are better off, we all still benefit, as those people will hopefully be more happy, healthy and productive, thus lowering the burden they have on society as a whole.
So giving the less well off a bit more (reletivley speaking), would result in a net beneft for all, IMO.
................................................
In other news, this is quite interesting..
The chancellor has said the government is "absolutely happy" to look at joining a pan-European customs area after the EU said it is open to British membership.
Earlier this week, EU trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic said Brussels "could consider" allowing the UK into the Pan Euro Mediterranean Convention (PEM) as part of a "reset" in discussions between the UK and the EU.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News' Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips: "It was really interesting to see Maros Sefcovic this week suggest that the UK might be welcome in that Pan Euro Mediterranean customs framework.
"We are absolutely happy to look at those different proposals because we know the deal the previous government secured is not working well enough, not for small businesses trying to export, it's not working well enough for large businesses either.
"We're grown up enough to admit that, whereas the previous government said there were no problems at all."
If I may interrupt the crisis facing moderates/balanced/centrists of what to call themselves and go back on topic, ie the UK government, I initially thought the sentiments behind this headline were reasonable :
Starmer praises Trump's role in Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal
You can't argue with that I thought, and yes Trump should be praised and encouraged for his role. But then I read this:
The prime minister used the call to lay out how his government was "deregulating to boost growth".
Earlier this week, Sir Keir announced plans to block campaigners from making repeated legal challenges to planning decisions for major infrastructure projects - while his chancellor hinted on Sunday that she would support expanding Heathrow Airport.
A 45 minute call to the US president and Starmer thinks that his plans for deregulation in UK planning is a worthy topic of discussion? Coz like Trump really cares?
Starmer really is desperate to be accepted in Donald Trump's and Elon Musk's little gang isn't he?
As the article goes on the to say :
Trump himself has supported a deregulatory agenda - a view he shares with adviser and tech billionaire Elon Musk, who before taking up a US government position complained about regulations standing in the way of his companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78xmp1vkljo
I would say I think he’s a bit of a wrong-un, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him.
And yet he is a "centrist/moderate". See the problem?
Starmer really is desperate to be accepted in Donald Trump’s and Elon Musk’s little gang isn’t he?
It is somewhat problematic especially since the CMA chair has just been sacked since he wasnt sufficiently enthusiastic about Starmers "pro-growth" model. Luckily the former head of Amazon UK has stepped up as a interim boss.
Its getting back to the good old days where those boring regulations were torn down to allow for growth.
I am sure this time though we wont have privatised profits and socialised losses.
If I may interrupt the crisis facing moderates/balanced/centrists
I'm certainly not having a crisis...it seems the American definition of moderate is anyone who isn't a raving facist....the most supprising thing is they are using that term at all, intsead of crying Libs, or marxist snowflakes, etc.
But that doesn't change what the word means, I could call the sky green all day long, it wouldn't change the fact that it's blue (or grey in my case!)
I’m certainly not having a crisis…it seems the American definition of moderate is anyone who isn’t a raving fascist
Which should have you thinking its not a simple definition. I was thinking about asking which country, time period and indeed axis to use but lets simplify it to one issue.
Slavery. Roughly we can propose the axis as:
Anti slavery
Centrist: not quite sure what this should be? Maybe the British position where we banned it but werent fussed about it elsewhere or maybe indentured servitude?
Pro slavery
I’m certainly not having a crisis
Well you are posting multiple posts about it and it's not the first time you have expressed your displeasure at me using using the term. For some reason you seem to think that I am referring to you when I talk about centrists in connection with the current government.
And you have previously told me that you prefer to be described as a "democratic socialist", which isn't a term that I am prepared to use to describe Keir Starmer and his Cabinet.
I used to use the term "moderates" when it was more fashionable to do so. Now the widely used and accepted term is centrist. I fall to understand what the problem is - from what I can figure out it is fine to use the term centrist if you are agreeing with them but unacceptable if for any reason you are criticising them.
It makes no sense to me. You can spend all day slagging off leftists and I will remain perfectly happy with being called a leftist.
Shy Tories are a recognised phenomena it now turns out that we also have shy centrists. Presumably it is for the same reason - a little embarrassed about what they believe in/support.
Slavery. Roughly we can propose the axis as:
Anti slavery
Centrist: not quite sure what this should be? Maybe the British position where we banned it but werent fussed about it elsewhere or maybe indentured servitude?
Pro slavery
Well you're just plain wrong if you ask me... 'the Dictionary' has entered the chat:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
adjective: centrist
having moderate political views or policies.
On what planet is being pro-slavery a centrist/moderate view? And what are you smoking?
Well you are posting multiple posts about it and it’s not the first time you have expressed your displeasure at me using using the term. For some reason you seem to think that I am referring to you when I talk about centrists in connection with the current government.
My apologies, you were the first example I found to hand, from the usual suspects, I didn't mean to single you out.
What angers me is people (you included) using the word 'centrist' as not only an insult, but completely abusing the term to imply something else entirely.
a little embarrassed about what they believe in/support.
If I was embarrased about my views, I wouldn't be openly commenting on this topic.
And what are you smoking?
I am genuinely surprised that you apparently cannot see the point being made. During the pro/anti slavery debate William Wilberforce will definitely have been considered an extremist, certainly not a moderate/centrist.
At the other end of the spectrum a slave trader will have also been considered an extremist.
A moderate/centrist would have likely fudged the issue with "no more transatlantic slave trade but maybe indentured servitude from say Ireland so that plantation owners in the West Indies don't suffer too much, and maybe they could be legally guaranteed their freedom after 20 years"
I am genuinely surprised that you apparently cannot see the point being made.
The point is you don't understand what one simple word means.
A moderate/centrist would have likely fudged....
Oh, would 'they' now? Really. Again. moderate and/or centrist doesn't mean what you think it does. You either don't understand, or you are purposely abusing the word.
Which is it?
You seem reasonably intelligent, and I actually agree with a lot of your sentiment on other topics, so my money is on the latter.
Well you’re just plain wrong if you ask me… ‘the Dictionary’ has entered the chat:
Excellent. Glad to hear it. Sadly its a bit of a tautology defining centrist as moderate and vice versa which brings us onto.
On what planet is being pro-slavery a centrist/moderate view? And what are you smoking?
Lets cast our mind back to lets say about 1770 and the Somersett case which is seen as one of the main triggers for the anti slavery movement. Initially this was led by a bunch of extremists like the Quakers but gradually it became more widespread with the house of commons voting in favour of gradual abolition in 1792 before being slapped down by the house of lords who wanted to see proper evidence for and against.
There was gradual progress but only in 1833 was it finally abolished. Even then it came with huge payments to the "owners" as well as an extremely dubious "apprenticeship" lasting another seven years.
So stepping forward a decade at a time from the 1770s. What is the centrist/moderate position at each point?
More depressingly given modern slavery we could stay at todays date but switch countries and ask the same question.