• This topic has 11,869 replies, 38 voices, and was last updated 4 minutes ago by ctk.
Viewing 40 posts - 10,841 through 10,880 (of 11,870 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Sunak in first place is scary; balance the books = more austerity.
    His personal circumstances mean he’s totally insulated from the effects of any policies which are implemented on his watch.
    He’s equally as corrupt as any other tory – just in a different way.

    Absolutely, this incompetent idiot is dressed up as some sort of super economist.

    He’s exactly the opposite; tells lies about macro-economic policy, distorts the truth about growth and expectation, chief Brexiteer – and architect of the eat out to help out.

    And as you say one of the Tory conference fools that talks up tightening the government’s belt as though it’s a sound economic thing to do.

    He’s terrible but has a polished media image.

    Meritocracy doesn’t matter with the Tories.

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    He’s terrible but has a polished media image.

    Very much like Cameron then.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    Sunak did a really good job of distancing himself from dropping HS3 & NPR, despite the exchequer being apparently a driving force behind dropping it.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    He couldn’t do that without the cabinet, not least the PM, being happy to go along with it. Succession.

    From his first speech as an MP:

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    Now Starmer won’t say whether he thinks Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. This is a man for whom he served in the shadow cabinet.

    What does it say about Starmer’s judgment if he now thinks his party leader wasn’t fit to be PM, when compared to the narcissistic buffoon we now have in power.

    I meant mainly it just says he’s too scared to upset the Daily Mail/his Blairite backers by saying anything positive about Corbyn. Just comes out looking weak and spineless, again.

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    Well it sends a clear message to voters that they were right to vote Tory.

    But perhaps he should be a bit more self-critical and admit that as chief architect of Labour’s second referendum election policy he bears a personal responsibility for Johnson’s huge majority.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Perhaps the “Johnson vs Corbyn” election is long behind us, and telling the voters now that they should have chosen Corbyn, telling them that they voted the wrong way in 2019 (I think they did), isn’t the way for the new leader to signal to them that they have been listened to, and the party has changed. The focus needs to be “we get that you liked what Johnson was saying, but he is letting you down, his promises mean nothing, he doesn’t serve you he serves himself and his contacts”… all focus should be on the choices voters have coming their way. It is highly likely that voting for Johnson again will be one of those choices. Voting for Corbyn won’t be.

    Premier Icon kerley
    Free Member

    I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.
    I think he would have been pretty useless in fact. I would still MUCH rather have a useless Corbyn (and his associated party and polices) than a useless Johnson but that is not the question.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    I’d take Corbyn over Johnson any day. But then I voted Labour when Corbyn was leader. Telling me I was right, wise, smart, conscientious, righteous for backing the loser might make me feel good, but so what? If Starmer nails himself to the mast of Corbyn’s ship now, he’s sunk. The answer is to de-personalise it… “any Labour government would be better for the country than any Conservative government”. Lecturing the voters that they should have backed someone who is now not even a Labour MP doesn’t seem wise.

    How often does Johnson have to field questions about Hague or Howard as alternative PMs?

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.

    He would have been a magnitude better.

    He might have had flaws but he’s honest and decent enough to have put the country in the right place.

    There is nothing positive about Johnson.

    I would still MUCH rather have a useless Corbyn (and his associated party and polices) than a useless Johnson but that is not the question.

    That is just a messy way of saying you thought Corbyn would’ve have been better. No need for gritted teeth.

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.

    Yeah but I am fairly confident that you are not leader of the Labour Party.

    I have no idea who you voted for last election kerley or who you are likely to vote for next general election, but I do expect the leader of the Labour Party to be a Labour Party supporter.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    At least Tony Blair came out and said he would rather a left-wing Labour party lost. I guess it would be weird for Starmer to say that when he would have been part of the government.

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/21/labour-will-not-throw-cash-at-uks-problems-keir-starmer-to-tell-cbi

    “He has also said he does not think the big six energy companies should be brought into public ownership, in a rejection of the sweeping nationalisation Labour planned in 2019.”

    It is interesting that the Guardian should describe it as simply “a rejection of the sweeping nationalisation Labour planned in 2019” when much more significant is that it is a rejection of Starmer’s own personal pledge he made in 2020, never mind 2019.

    Starmer pledge number 5 in fact :

    Common ownership
    Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

    The one thing that is absolutely certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted at all on any commitments he has made in the past, is making now, and will make in the future.

    Voters will never be in a position to know what to expect from Starmer, apart from dishonesty.

    He will say whatever he feels he needs to say to gain support without any actual commitment whatsoever.

    British politics deserves better.

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Free Member

    British politics deserves better.

    Given our recent voting record I’m not sure we do 🙂

    The whole system needs a massive shake up but that won’t be happening anytime soon

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    He’s also going to ‘balance the books’ guys, austerity isn’t dead yet.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    The abandonment of energy privatisation is deeply disappointing. Now do freedom of movement of workers…

    Premier Icon big_n_daft
    Free Member

    The abandonment of energy privatisation is deeply disappointing.

    The wholesale nationalisation isn’t a panacea, just nationalise a chunk, then use it as a comparator and drive the others to meet or exceed the performance of the nationalised bit. Doesn’t get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation, reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    The one thing that is absolutely certain about Starmer is that he cannot be trusted at all on any commitments he has made in the past, is making now, and will make in the future.

    Voters will never be in a position to know what to expect from Starmer, apart from dishonesty.

    Completely.

    Though Starmer acting in the interests of the market is absolutely no surprise.

    He’s all about the status-quo. He sees that as the path to centrist victory.

    Shortly everything will be in such a mess anyone with half a brain will realise we can’t carry on with the same ideology – which Starmer is intent on.

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Doesn’t get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation, reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.

    Because the market has served us so well in that regard ?

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    Doesn’t get everyone overexcited about lefty sweeping nationalisation

    You have completely missed the point BnD it has nothing to do with whether nationalisation is a good idea or not, it is about honesty and trust.

    When he was standing for an election Starmer made a pledge to his potential voters that he would support the common ownership of energy, and let us remember that a pledge is defined as a solemn and binding promise.

    With the election out of the way he then argues the complete opposite a few months later.

    He should never had made the pledge in the first place if he had no intention of actually keeping to it.

    It is completely impossible for voters to know what voting for Starmer actually means. A healthy functioning democratic process requires voters to know as much as possible what they are actually voting for.

    Starmer will say one thing to Labour Party members and then the complete opposite to members of the CBI, it really is the worse from of opportunism, and it needs to be driven out of British politics.

    The only way to drive it out is by attaching a heavy electoral cost to it, as the LibDems to their regret have discovered.

    Premier Icon BillMC
    Full Member

    Yep, Serco reduces cost and risk, makes room for more innovation, achieves the outcomes desired.

    Premier Icon dissonance
    Full Member

    then use it as a comparator and drive the others to meet or exceed the performance of the nationalised bit.

    The problem, of course, is the private approach would “outperform” the public one when based on the simple short term approach normally used. For example the binning off of storage facilities saved a lot of money in the short term but means they cant handle surges in prices as well or even worse temporary disruption to supply which may well occur.
    Likewise if you sack half the maintenance staff you do well for a few years until the debt builds up and everything gets very costly.

    Premier Icon dazh
    Full Member

    I also wouldn’t be able to say whether Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson.

    Jesus. He would have been miles better, by a long, long way. Unless of course you think a lying, lazy, selfish and corrupt narcissist is preferable to someone who is honest, compassionate, hard working and actually gives a shit about normal people? FFS get a grip.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    good summary here

    In his address to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) annual conference today, Sir Keir Starmer has said that Labour is “open to business”.

    He said that Labour is both the party of work and the party of business, and that British Industry must be able to compete in an “ever-competitive world”.

    Sir Keir said he would work with the private sector to “put right” Britain’s failure to be as “dynamic” as possible, referring to the partial role of Harold Wilson’s government in establishing the CBI.

    He also argued that his vision was of a “future radical Labour government that will not provoke division”.
    In a clear pushback at the prime minister’s allusion to pandemic supply issues as the key reason behind ongoing economic issues, Sir Keir highlighted that “even before the pandemic”, the Conservatives were not tackling the UK’s productivity.

    “Of course, the Government has its own answer to the productivity problem,” he says, jibing that “He’s called Geoffrey Cox.”

    He described the government’s decision to scrap the eastern leg of HS2 as a ”betrayal of the North” and of “economic regions”.

    He said a “national reset” is needed in the wake of Covid-19 and Brexit, and that collaboration between industry and the government was vital to remake Britain’s economy so that it is fit for the future”.

    Alluding to Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey’s comments earlier today, Sir Keir said that: “The only f-words I will be using are foreign investment, fair trade, fiscal policy and fiduciary duty.”

    “We really don’t think the solution to every problem is just to throw cash at it,” he complained, lauding his shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’ “brilliant” work in the wake of the “missed opportunity” of the government’s October budget.

    He said the government’s lack of “industrial strategy” and “no business plan” was behind the “missed opportunity”.
    He echoed a line from his party conference speech, saying that: “We all have a duty to make Brexit work.”

    He summarised several policies that he argued would “fill the holes” in the current government’s post-Brexit strategy in order to ensure British firms maintain their competitiveness while maintaining “our interests”.

    He explained: “Labour would also look to find an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessments across all sectors. That would mean our producers would no longer have to complete two sets of tests. There would be no need for two certification processes to sell goods in both the UK and the EU.

    “We would seek regulatory equivalence for financial services, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, because we absolutely recognise the importance of looking after our world-class financial and professional service businesses.

    “We would seek to maintain Britain’s data adequacy status, making our data protection rules equivalent to those in the EU, to secure UK digital services companies’ competitiveness.

    “We’d also seek a better long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems we are seeing.”

    He accused Boris Johnson of being more interested in “pantomime disputes” than leadership.

    good focus on education too (the only way to really ‘level up’ imo)

    My message for today is clear. As I said in my speech at Labour party conference: Labour is back in business. The dual meaning is entirely deliberate.

    We are and we always were, the party of work. Founded in the workplace, we are the party of working people. And that means Labour is also the party of business.

    The first annual report of the CBI, back in 1965, made a point that still stands today… “The whole future of Britain”, it reported, “rests upon the success of industry”… “industry must be dynamic, competitive and profitable to compete in an ever increasingly competitive world.”

    Those words, half a century old, could have been written yesterday. Britain is not as dynamic, competitive and profitable as we need to be. Today I want to discuss how we can create a contract together to put that right.

    In a way we have always been bound together, the Labour party and the CBI. The CBI was founded, at least in part, as a response to a Labour government.

    Your commemorative book, The CBI: 50 Years of Business Innovation, notes that the radical policies of the Wilson government “resulted in sharply divided tactics among members”.

    Today, I hope to give you a flavour of a future radical Labour government that will not provoke division. Because if you get above the political fray and survey the British economy over a longer timeframe, we have a familiar and a persistent problem. We still haven’t cracked productivity.

    I heard what the Prime Minister said this morning. But I’m afraid even before the pandemic, Britain went through the worst decade for productivity growth since the Industrial Revolution. That’s staggering.

    Of course, the government has its own answer to the productivity problem. He is called Geoffrey Cox. But we might need a little more than that. It’s not as if we don’t know the answer.

    We need increased business investment. A better capital stock and improved infrastructure. We need to embrace new technology. We need to lift our export performance. We need cities outside the south-east to become economic powerhouses.

    Which is why it is so devastating to see the government rip up its promises in relation to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. These are not just train lines. They are lifelines for businesses and commuters.

    And it’s not just a betrayal of the North. It’s a betrayal of the economic potential of those regions, denying them the growth that your Director General, Tony Danker, has championed so effectively, including in his speech this morning.

    And if we are really serious about improving productivity, then, most of all, we need investment in our people to ensure they have the skills that are right for the modern economy.

    After the pandemic and after Brexit, we need a national reset. The business community and the political world need to work together. We both have a job to do. That job is to remake Britain. And that means remaking Britain’s economy so it is fit for the future.

    Relations between politics and business have not always been warm. The Prime Minister himself has not exactly been complimentary. I can promise you that the only F words I will be using are foreign investment, fair trade, fiscal policy and fiduciary duty.

    I know we have bridges to build, and I want to start a dialogue with you here today. I want to start that conversation by thanking you all for the part you’ve played, especially in the last 18 months, where your incredible resilience and hard work has helped protect livelihoods and communities.

    Your leadership has made a difference. And the reputation of our businesses has been enhanced. So let me describe how I see my side of the contract.

    Getting our economy to grow, getting to grips with the problem of productivity. And giving business a generation of young people ready for work. Any contract needs to be based on stability.

    In tax policy, regulation and the terms of trade, you want as much certainty as you can get. You want independent institutions. Treaties that are respected, contracts that are enforced.

    After Covid and Brexit, our public finances are in a fragile state. In her recent conference speech Rachel Reeves, my brilliant shadow chancellor, made her commitment to fiscal discipline abundantly clear.

    Our five fiscal rules make it plain that we will never spend money just for the sake of it. We really don’t think that the solution to every problem is to throw cash at it.

    And just as every one of you scrutinises the cost side of your business, constantly asking yourself if investments are paying off, we will do the same on behalf of the tax paying public.

    The problem we face today is that we have no industrial strategy, no business plan. The Budget was an opportunity to address that, and remake Britain. But it was an opportunity missed.

    In Tony Danker’s own words: “it isn’t bold enough to deliver the high investment, high productivity economy the government seeks”. I think putting a cap on investment, as the government has, is a false economy. It’s a cap on ambition and a cap on productivity.

    There is nothing that suggests a government getting to grips with the scale of the challenge. You can see all around us what happens when a government has no plan. And it’s happening now. Prices going up. Energy getting more expensive. Taxes rising £3,000 more per household by 2026. And with the effects of Brexit and Covid working through, a shortage of labour.

    And the really irritating thing about this is, that it was so predictable. Lord Bilimoria himself warned in June that a perfect storm of economic problems was brewing. He pointed to HGV drivers specifically, as well as butchers, brewers, and welders.

    It’s the same in professional services and the same in manufacturing. This is, in part, about Brexit because the government thinks all it has to do is say the words “Get Brexit Done.” It has absolutely no plan to Make Brexit Work.

    Just to be clear, Labour is not planning a re-match. Brexit has happened and we are not going to re-join. But it is obvious that a poorly thought-through Brexit is holding Britain back. It is astonishing to see a government that negotiated a treaty, complaining that the deal they signed doesn’t work.

    Wait till the PM finds out who negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol. I wish he would stop picking fights for the sake of it, and just get on with it.

    Labour will work with business on this. We should carry out a transparent and honest analysis together of all the holes in the Prime Minister’s deal. We need to work out how we can fill them fast, without the risk of trade wars, without erecting further barriers to co-operation with our allies and without the need for even more years of painful negotiations.

    Of course, decisions that have been made must be respected, and negotiations will be tough. And this is a message to those on both sides of the channel. We all have a duty to make Brexit work, so bear with me as I give you some concrete examples of what we would do.

    We would negotiate a new veterinary agreement for trade in agri-products. This would have two benefits. First. It would help to get through the impasse over the Northern Ireland protocol. Second, it would cut red tape and barriers for exporters across the UK.

    Labour would also look to find an agreement on mutual recognition of conformity assessments across all sectors. That would mean our producers would no longer have to complete two sets of tests. There would be no need for two certification processes to sell goods in both the UK and the EU.

    We would seek regulatory equivalence for financial services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications because we absolutely recognise the importance of looking after our world-class financial and professional service businesses.

    We would also seek to maintain Britain’s data adequacy status. That would mean that our data protection rules would continue to be deemed equivalent to those in the EU. Which would, in turn, make UK digital services companies more competitive.

    And, finally, we would seek a better long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems we are seeing. This is a plan that follows closely what many of you have told me is needed to move us towards the closer trade arrangement that we need with the EU.

    I believe all of this is achievable by robustly defending our interests and patiently negotiating. There is one further element – leadership. Trust matters in international negotiations but with this PM that ingredient is missing.

    Instead, what we get is a series of pantomime disputes, which is no good for British business or for the British public. And no help at all as we tackle the task of remaking Britain.

    Now, let me come to where the government most needs to keep its side of the contract. To ensure that our people get the skills they need. The battle for talent will be one of the defining issues of the 21st Century

    As I travel the country and I talk to businesses, I am constantly struck by how often I am told about skills shortages. A recent survey showed that 80% of businesses were worried about skills. The world has changed. The demand of skills has changed.

    Business leaders tell me that the skills we need today to be more productive are critical thinking, creativity, communication and the ability to work in a team. And, in my view, we don’t value technical and vocational skills nearly enough.

    So it is no wonder that this country does much worse in computer skills than our economic rivals. No wonder that fewer than half of employers believe young people have the digital skills required. Think of all the students we effectively abandon at the age of 18. 40% leave education without essential qualifications

    A lot of these students could really flourish if they received a high-quality technical training. Yet funding per student in further education and sixth form colleges has fallen by 11 per cent in real terms since 2010. And, that’s why today, I am announcing my new council of skills advisors. David Blunkett, working along with the tech entrepreneur Praful Nargund and the skills expert Rachel Sandby Thomas to recommend the change we need to ensure everyone leaves education, job ready and life ready.

    My council will explore how to ensure that young people are literate in the technology of the day. That’s why we would add digital skills to the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. And I also want my council to advise me on how we can lift the sights of all pupils. We must encourage their ambition and be more ambitious for them.

    In my own constituency there is a wonderful primary school, Rhyl Primary school, which runs a great programme called Raising Aspirations. Employers like Mercedes, Derwent, Google, the Ritz and The Crick Institute inspire the children to think about the jobs they might do, jobs they might never have considered before or even heard of.

    Just recently the kids met Lewis Hamilton to learn about engineering, where we have a significant skills shortage I can’t tell you what a difference this kind of thing makes. Better skills are vital if we are to improve productivity and economic growth. That’s why getting the next generation ready for work will be my mission as leader of the Labour party.

    So skills policy is the first line in the first chapter of Labour’s plan for good business. It’s a plan that I want you all to be part of. It’s a plan that will include a policy for start-ups. We would create 100,000 new businesses over the next five years by boosting the Start Up Loans Scheme.

    And let me turn next to business rates. Because we know we can’t achieve the investment we need if the tax burden is not fair. The Conservatives promised fundamental reform four times, and each time all we’ve got is tinkering around the edges. Labour will not just walk around this problem. We will scrap and replace business rates with a much fairer alternative to incentivise investment.

    And we want public bodies to give more contracts to British firms. Those contracts will raise social and environmental standards. Our buy, make and sell more in Britain policy will weigh not just the cost and quality of a contract but also the value it brings to our communities. Make it here – that is how we will remake Britain.

    Now, we are meeting a week after the limited progress made at COP26 in Glasgow. It’s obvious we need to do more if we are to protect our planet – that is our solemn duty. But, when I think of the climate crisis I don’t just think of duty. I think of the huge opportunity. Like Joe Biden, when I think climate crisis, I think jobs.

    If we invest in manufacturing electric vehicles, if we increase investment in our ports, and finally turn our world-leading status in offshore wind into jobs, then the future can be green, fair and prosperous. That is why Labour is committed to the investment needed.

    Our climate investment pledge amounts to £28bn a year until 2030. We would commit £6bn over a decade to upgrade every home that needs it. That creates about half a million jobs. In the workplace, we would help fund the investment in the giga-factories we need for electric car manufacturing. What we need now is a sector-by-sector plan. For the car industry. For the steel industry. For all industry.

    Our competitors are already doing it. We can’t afford not to. This is our side of the contract. To run a stable government and a tight ship. To equip the next generation for work. To invest in British business, and to create a wave of high-skilled jobs.

    Of course, on your side of the contract, there are responsibilities too. To invest in the long term. To contribute as we strive towards net zero. To contribute to your local communities. To support your workforce with fair pay and flexible working.

    When I was reflecting on this opportunity to speak to you today, I thought of my dad. He was a skilled industrial worker. A tool maker in a factory. And the thing that I really remember from my dad was how hard he worked. His industry. Your organisation and mine both have a synonym for work in our titles. Industry and Labour. That is why we must work together to remake Britain for the future.

    Our mutual interest, our shared passion. To use the full potential of our nation. To maximise the contribution we can all make. The next government will inherit a big job. To get Britain fit for the future. I look forward to working with you. To remake Britain.

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    So which bits did he actually mean?

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    Btw pledge number 5 hasn’t been deleted from Starmer’s own website :

    10 Pledges

    Why would anyone trust the sincerity of a man who can’t be arsed to update his own website so that it no longer contradicts him?

    Starmer clearly, with some justification, takes people for suckers.

    Premier Icon BillMC
    Full Member

    Trickle down and the railway. It could have been written by any party.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Full Member

    The problem, of course, is the private approach would “outperform” the public one when based on the simple short term approach normally used. For example the binning off of storage facilities saved a lot of money in the short term but means they cant handle surges in prices as well or even worse temporary disruption to supply which may well occur.

    East coast mainline was able to compete & turn a profit for taxpayers,
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/04/east-coast-mainline-fury-reprivatisation-plan

    so it could definitely work

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    He also argued that his vision was of a “future radical Labour government that will not provoke division”.

    Apart from with the left-wing of our own party.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Making it clear that government investment need not be capped at all, if it is investment that will result in economic advantage. Damn straight. Not a magic money tree… more that if you want forests, you need to get on and plant trees.

    Taking the right line on “making Brexit work” as well, including new agreements with the EU, especially certifying once for both markets. Next year’s move to UKCA could cause real economic damage, and pushing the right alternative approach now is welcome… no doubt he’ll still be called “Captain Hindsight” by left and right alike when everyone else wakes up to that problem.

    Focus on post GCSE education, when the government have cut funding per a student in this area, also a good thing for this speech. Employers/industry have both a role and a need here. UK government needs to increase investment here, and members of the CBI know it, will benefit from it, and need to push for it, and contribute and get involved more with education of students at this age.

    Investment talk as regards climate change all sounds on the mark as well. Even if there are members of his front bench who could explain the need for it in ways that engage the listener 10x better than his delivery today will.

    I wish he’s stop talking about his dad.

    Premier Icon fadda
    Full Member

    I wish he’s stop talking about his dad.

    Kind of agree, but does it serve the purpose of drawing attention to the start difference between his dad and, you know…

    Premier Icon rone
    Free Member

    Our five fiscal rules make it plain that we will never spend money just for the sake of it. We really don’t think that the solution to every problem is to throw cash at it

    RIP.

    Macro-economic failure.

    The trouble is everything is in dire need of money you stupid Tory cloning regressive fool.

    Premier Icon dazh
    Full Member

    For Kerley, please compare and contrast and then let us know whether you still don’t know if Corbyn would have been a better PM than Johnson. I hope the rightwing ***** in the Labour Party are happy with themselves.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    Jeez. 🙁

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    We could do a whole thread on comparisons like that Dazh. Corbyn would have been head and shoulders above Johnson as a PM, in my opinion.

    So would Starmer… but I’d still rather Labour changed it’s leader to one who can campaign, enfuse, and win over the electorate… Starmer had one good shot in 2017. And then should have moved aside. I don’t think Starmer should even get the one shot at a general election! But we’re stuck with him for now it seems. More importantly, and depressingly… we’re stuck with Johnson.

    Premier Icon kelvin
    Full Member

    Starmer had one good shot in 2017

    That should have been “Corbyn had one good shot in 2017”. Obviously.

    Forgive me. Forgive me. Forgive me.

    Premier Icon dazh
    Full Member

    Wow! I know it was reported that Starmer had to have beginners economics lessons from his shadow treasury ministers when he took over, but this is naivety on another level. Even Blair never went quite as far as this Thatcherite trickle down nonsense.

    Premier Icon grum
    Full Member

    No more divisiveness

    Premier Icon ernielynch
    Free Member

    Tony Blair was smart enough to leave boring and more complicated stuff like economics to Gordon Brown.

    Starmer presumably feels that surplus value is more of a hands-on topic for him.

    Although surprisingly he didn’t seem to have mentioned it during his leadership campaign.

    Premier Icon BillMC
    Full Member

    Starmer is arguing for drilling more surplus value out of the working class, absolute and relative, and then ‘everyone’ will be happy. He’s not even a very convincing tory.

Viewing 40 posts - 10,841 through 10,880 (of 11,870 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.