Forum menu
Like Logan’s Run?
?
I'm talking about rebalancing the voting power of generations in favour of the young who have a higher stake in the future, not killing people off to save resources.
tbf rebalancing the voting power of generations is an equally stupid suggestion as killing off the over 40’s. Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work so have less of a stake in the future, or those without degrees - they’re not going to earn as much and are a bit thick so won’t have any real stake in the future either
Maybe disenfranchise women as they stay at home and don’t work
Think you're about 50 years out of date mate. You might want to catch up and think about more modern issues like the disenfranchisement and impoverishment of the younger generation by people who have enjoyed a massive unearned boost to their own wealth through property price inflation and gilt-edged pensions.
Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR. It's not just that we have an aging population voting, it's all about where people are concentrated geographically that skews the power towards the older home owning generation. Young people living in cities are so often just throwing their vote on a pile of votes placed by their young neighbours voting the same... it's one of the reasons so may don't vote. We need to count people's votes, and make those votes count... not disenfranchise people by age, education, or any other category. And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Remove the heavy weighing towards the older generation by introducing PR
It's probably one of the strongest arguments for PR, but I'm not sure it solves the far right/reform problem. Seeing as the older generation are the main culprits in voting for reactionary fascists I still favour my solution. Kill two birds with one stone. 😉
And give 16 and 17 year olds the vote.
Give them two votes!
If we're going to be disenfranchising people, my feeling is that over a certain financial threshold you shouldn't be allowed to vote, so chose one or the other. If you're free from the worries of paying the mortgage or 'leccy bill, or being out of work for more than a few weeks/months, then you shouldn't have a say in how the rest of us organise things.
Disenfranchising more voters won't help, that is already being done political backers filtering the policies they will support. That is what labours victory is based on, offer nothing deliver nothing and hope the far right don't re-assemble and purge the left. We already have a government of disenfranchisement.
I read yesterday one of the tory hopefulls is dead set on leaving the ECHR...
So whilst Labour have leaned more toward the center from the frankly loony far left under corbyn.. the tories have leaned even further right.
I think things like that seem to be amusingly forgotten when some say that Labour are just tory lite.
Which of labours policies was "looney far left" by the way?
Is not implementing crippling austerity "looney far left" now, or supporting workers rights is that "looney far left"?
Abolishing Trident for a start... That would not have aged well given the Russian war we have today!
The guy is/was absolutely clueless... I'd sooner vote conservative than Labour with that fantasist in charge!
Plus he was totally anti EU... So much for socialism!! His kind of socialism with him as supreme dictator doesn't sound very much like socialism to me... It sounds very much like something else, lol!
Abolishing Trident for a start…
That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.
Corbyn's manifestos weren't even socialist. I don't ever remember him suggesting the state was going to sieze the means of production. I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press. Well done!
I think you basically imagined it all based on lies printed in the tory press.
Exhibit A:
https://www.politico.eu/article/trident-corbyn-vote-nuclear-news-deterrent/
Need I go on? Lol
Which of labours policies was “looney far left” by the way?
In 2017 the plan to nationalise the railways, water, and post office while conveniently omitting them from the "fully costed" promise that they made. In of themselves not bad per see, just the commitment to do it regardless as a matter of ideology while hiding the cost (which would still be onerous). On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)
Abolishing Trident for a start…
That was never a labour policy in a Corbyn manifesto.
Oh there you go with your nitpicking again. Next you will be reminding us how Corbyn warned UK politicians not to cosy up with Putin and the Russian oligarchy!
The important thing is what the Daily Mail told its readers, not what is actually true.
Oh yes.. I forgot about the free internet for everyone unicorn, hahah!
Exhibit A:
So you yourself provides evidence which completely undermines your previous claim that under Corbyn Labour had a policy of abolishing Trident? Well done!!
I actually voted Labour in the last election...
I don't particularly like Starmer, but I'd take him over corbyn or the Conservative party.
A bit a a Hobsons choice, but it is what it is.
Whatever.. That's enough political for me today.
Carry on...
That’s enough political for me today.
Good move, you may want to actually be able to back up your comments about the looney far left next time. Have a think about what far left would actually be and then compare it to the pretty moderate Corbyn manifesto.
On the doorstep the govt broadband plan was mostly met with derision (as a canvasser/leafleter)
I concur (it wasn't policy in 2017 though). And it was a policy that I fully supported... OpenReach just eats subsidies to fail to deliver anywhere near the infrastructure that's normal across Europe. But selling that policy was impossible. As was the creeping stealth nationalisation of a share of all large companies under the guise of employee ownership (also a 2019 voter repelling late add on)... without the employees actually owning anything. Energy and water nationalisation were popular though. Although nationalising fossil fuel use made no sense to me... it needs to die quietly in the private sector... the multiple billing company stuff is a total mess, proven by the recent collapses in that sector. Water should still be considered. Well, I'll go further than that, events will mean water has to be considered.
Rail is happening though. And in a way that makes sense to all but the most ideologically stubborn.
That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example
At the end of 2023 our economy was just under 8% bigger than it was in 2016.
Oh yes.. I forgot about the free internet for everyone unicorn, hahah!
You don't think having universal high speed internet is important in this day and age? Funny how immediately after 2019 we were suddenly in a world where working from home was required and the communications network was found to be wholly inadequate. Bang for buck the free internet policy would have been the most cost-effective investment to the country's infrastructure that we've ever seen and would have provided a significant economic stimulus through higher productivity and innovation. Lets not bother with all that new-fangled technology though eh? Here in the UK we do everything the old way.
meftyFree Member
That our economy is now smaller by a considerable margin than it was (taking a year completely at random) than say 2016 for example
At the end of 2023 our economy was just under 8% bigger than it was in 2016.
Its how the economy (or GDP) is distributed that is the issue,
it’s all very well saying that the economy is “x%” increased but if it goes into the hands of business’s or individuals that can obfuscate for tax purposes then it means sod all
You don’t think having universal high speed internet is important in this day and age?
Last reply this evening, I promise!
A) yes but B...
B) Who's going to pay for all the ongoing infrastructure maintenence and the built in technical debt? raise income tax for everyone by a few percent, including those who already pay £25 per month for internet?
lol, re you really claiming that "technical debt" for high speed internet would raise taxes by a few percent. By that maths the technical debt of all state projects and infrastructure should increase tax by about 1000%
Anyway, has any one got a "loony far left" policy yet, we have had two attempts and 2 failures so far.
Anyway, has any one got a “loony far left” policy yet, we have had two attempts and 2 failures so far.
Abandoning austerity?
raise income tax for everyone by a few percent
Labour's costings for the policy in 2019 were approx 20bn. That was to be spent over 10 years. Of course you wouldn't have to raise such a paltry sum by raising taxes because you'd do what Rachel Reeves is about to do an 'borrow' it, but even if you did, some quick chatgpting suggest the rate of tax would have to increase by around 0.2% over 10 years.
including those who already pay £25 per month for internet?
You do realise it was 'free' broadband? As in end users wouldn't have to pay it. For many £25 a month would be more than the extra income tax they would have to pay. It's a no-brainer.
Yup. And geographically redistributive. The areas that need improved connectivity the most are those away from centres of wealth. A sound policy. It was good for business, good for the economy. But voters didn’t get it. Partly because it was being explained by politicans that didn’t get it! And it was part of the “new nationalisation every morning” policy rollout in 2019… sure, that energised voter turnout… but in both positive and negative ways for Labour.
This is a surprisingly inactive thread, considering the topic, no activity for over a week!
Anyway I found this quite interesting:
Sir Keir Starmer’s approval rating has collapsed more significantly after winning an election than any other prime minister in modern history, a new poll has shown.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-polling-approval-ratings-b2637357.html
Following the July election, which saw the Labour Party win a landslide majority of 174 seats, the prime minister approval rating reached a high of plus 11.
But by October, just days before Rachel Reeves’ Budget on Wednesday, new polling from More in Common showed that the prime minister’s personal approval rating has fallen to -38 – a net drop of 49 points.
Sir Tony Blair’s approval rating was at plus 46 in August 1997, three months after he won a landslide election victory. At the time of the election, his approval rating stood at plus 60.
I wonder how long the PLP will give Starmer before they decide to replace him and hopefully avert a Tory-Reform coalition government next general election.
I wonder how long the PLP will give Starmer before they decide to replace him and hopefully avert a Tory-Reform coalition government next general election.
Possibly looking at a by-election in my constituency of Runcorn & Helsby if Mike Amesbury has to stand down. Reform came second so could well win which would pile the pressure on Starmer.
I will bet 50p that Starmer doesn't get replaced by the PLP. Starmer's fall has been precipitous but I think the days of PMs having long periods of positive ratings are gone. I think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he'd be the most hated man in the UK. Folks are just in that mood at the minute I think.
but I think the days of PMs having long periods of positive ratings are gone.
I take it that you didn't bother to read the article.
This is a surprisingly inactive thread, considering the topic, no activity for over a week!
I think everyone is waiting for the budget now, lets see what happens, I don't hold out much hope, but you never know. By the end of tomorrow we will see if we have a labour government in just name or if we have a labour government with some labour values.
think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he’d be the most hated man in the UK. Folks are just in that mood at the minute I think.
We keep telling these stupid hogs that things can never get better, all we can do is take away their cigarettes and tell them they need weight loss jabs, and for some reason they don't like us...
I think you could appoint David Attenborough as PM and within weeks/months he’d be the most hated man in the UK.
That would depend on the media response to him. If he didn’t align himself with any political party he might be left to get on with it for a tad longer, who knows.
Entirely unsurprised by the last few months of shifting goalposts for politicians now that Labour are in government. Not surprised that public sentiment has been moved so successfully by that endeavour by the press & media either. Those that painted these current Labour MPs as “the establishment” tend to be the same ones revelling in the press and wider establishment media gunning for them for successfully.
According to the pollster :
Mr Tryl blamed two key issues for the change in approval ratings, explaining: “If you ask what people have noticed, by a country mile it is the decision on the winter fuel allowance and the early release of prisoners.”
He also pointed to the row over freebies and donations.
I am not sure how the press and wider media are responsible for that, beyond their roles as news providers and reporting it.
I am not sure how the press and wider media are responsible for that, beyond their roles as news providers and reporting it.
well you are correct that the policies and actions are those of the politicians not the media but the relative attention of the media on any particular topic is a conscious decision, they pick the headlines, they pick the emphasis, they can decide if a story like winter fuel is a weekend of pain or weeks of regurgitation of the same story. They can chose if they present it as robbing from pensioners or rebalancing the fact that the wealthiest pensioners already got the best inflation boost of anyone etc. Now of course the government and their spin doctors can do the same but the editors carry a lot of power in how the public hear and absorb these stories. Same for prisons - starmer letting them out v tories over filled them.
Actually, what I think has been a PR shambles for them is the budget speculation: it seems everyone, of every political interest and none is expecting pain in the budget. Nobody is talking about any potential upsides. And it has been like that for two months now. That’s a lot of negative sentiment.
but the editors carry a lot of power in how the public hear and absorb these stories.
Yep, the reason much of the time that papers like the Sunday Times are able to report that MPs are taking freebies, is that they, along with Sky News, the BBC ITN etc invited them in the first place. It's a pretty cheap way to make sure you've a story tucked away for a rainy day
There is no incentive for corporations to supply super high speed broadband to everyone, this was recognised in the USA and they attempted to pay corporations to do it and they got bugger all in exchange:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken-promis_b_5839394
The sensible answer is view access to the internet as a standard utility and nationalise it.
The UK is currently rated ~50th for broadband speeds in the world, which is pretty poor considering the size of our economy and our population density.
The whole PLP were complicit in the election strategy of "the Tories are doing so bad in the polls we don't actually have to show our hand to get elected", so they aren't going to ditch Starmer now that the electorate are starting to see what he actually stands for and seemingly don't like it.
If you ask what people have noticed, by a country mile it is the decision on the winter fuel allowance and the early release of prisoners
The early release of prisoners that the Tory government was preparing for?
Yeah, right.
What they have noticed is what the right wing rags, and those that take their lead in other media, have focused on. Freeing up space in overstretched prisons is pretty easy to understand, if presented at face value, but even easier to turn into fun “news” stories with pictures of one or two prisoners being picked up in rented Bentleys etc. On winter fuel payments… all pensioners will be still better off this winter… and it’s time to stop handouts to richer pensioners and crack on with repairing children’s services… but painting the change as “bashing poor pensioners”, is easy. And all the campaign clothes stuff etc… past leaders (when not Labour) have their wives praised for wearing top end designer outfits given or lent to them… “supporting British fashion”, but of course you should never expect the papers and wider media to do anything other than paint the wives of Labour leaders as freeloaders if doing something similar. It’s not just “reporting the news”, the decisions made on the focus and style of reporting is key. Would any other Labour leader have got an easier ride in the first year? Of course not, Miliband, Corbyn and Brown would have been mercilessly pursued if they’d won an election… and in all three cases probably more so… but no one should go painting the British media as being even handed here, they are not, they are anti-Labour and double standards and moving goalposts have been plentiful in their coverage since the election.
but of course you should never expect the papers and wider media to do anything other than paint the wives of Labour leaders as freeloaders if doing something similar.
But Keir Starmer himself has said that it was a mistake and that he won't be doing it again in the future.
Whose fault is that.........the far-right/far-left BBC?
Better to apologize then to complain of double standards in the press, pretty simple PR there.