Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Keir Starmer


rb14
 Share

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

The next election isn't until 2024. They don't award any medals to whoever is leading the marathon at the 13-mile mark.

The 13 mile mark where history tells you the government is normally at its most unpopular.

 

The tories are 1-2 on to win the next election, Labour are 5-1 against.. I think I'll trust the bookies judgement over yours on this. The Tories haven't even got their election winning hat on yet, but make no mistake, in the last year they will. Its going to be another landslide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

The 13 mile mark where history tells you the government is normally at its most unpopular.

 

The tories are 1-2 on to win the next election, Labour are 5-1 against.. I think I'll trust the bookies judgement over yours on this. The Tories haven't even got their election winning hat on yet, but make no mistake, in the last year they will. Its going to be another landslide.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see them gain seats in a low-turnout election. Regardless of the consequences, people wanted them to GIT BREXIT DUNN and now they have the flag-shagging propaganda writes itself. All negatives will be waved away and blamed on COVID and the EU’s refusal to give Britain all the perks of being in the EU for some unknown and unforeseen reason, while Neo New Labour have nothing to say and inspire no-one to make a trip to the polling station. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at the DM comment sections a lot and the gradual sway from pro to anti tory cabinet is evident. Not saying it’s going to end up enough to swing blue voters to vote red but I wouldn’t be surprised if the next election is a lot closer to call than expected. Of course murdoch media won’t allow a Red victory though hence “scum” is a word we will hear more than the dead MPs name over the coming few weeks. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

Do you actually believe that? That you can spend trillions and it has zero effect on the nation credit, currency integrity and national finances?

 

I think that's what people find scary, Angry. 

It wouldn't have"zero effect". It would have a positive effect (as opposed to the Tory policy of tax cuts for the rich and wage/service cuts for everyone else, which knacked the country's credit rating) because, generally,  investment is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

It wouldn't have"zero effect". It would have a positive effect (as opposed to the Tory policy of tax cuts for the rich and wage/service cuts for everyone else, which knacked the country's credit rating) because, generally,  investment is a good thing.

It would be borrowing to invest on a colossal scale. It would only be a good thing if it had a debt productivity ratio of more than 1, meaning that each pound spent would have to at least yield a pound increase in national output.

 

Given that that ratio has been falling for years and that a lot of this "investment" goes on salaries and is unlikely to have a particularly high return on capital, how likely do you think it is that this spending would have a positive debt productivity ratio? If it had a negative ratio, and frankly it would then it would  be saddling future generations with debts that would be increasingly difficult to pay. 

 

If spending is just generally good then surely the only problem with Labour's 2019 manifesto is that it didn't promise enough spending. If spending is good and concerns over debt, productivity and debt productivity are irrelevant then surely ten trillion in new spending would have been better than a mere two. Why not twenty? Isn't it all good? 

 

Do you see the problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good gawd, I don't think the Labour right want to win the next election, or they know they have no chance of winning so are just going to settle old scores, 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/15/labour-spending-more-on-legal-battles-than-campaigning-sources

 

Awaits Spanner to say its all six of one half a dozen of the other before blaming everything on John McDonnell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Good gawd, I don't think the Labour right want to win the next election, or they know they have no chance of winning so are just going to settle old scores, 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/15/labour-spending-more-on-legal-battles-than-campaigning-sources

 

Awaits Spanner to say its all six of one half a dozen of the other before blaming everything on John McDonnell.

 

 

Hi Gnosher, 

 

Long time no me calling you a fucking idiot.

 

Anyhows, that literally says what you have accused me of saying, I'm sure that was the intention, right, and not some weird invented argument you had in your demented fucking mind, right?

 

Though I have been saying it for ages and have just been proven right by the article you just posted, so cheers for that, my internet kudos will never be higher.

 

Anyway, have a good evening you utter fucking moron.

 

Love and stuff,

Bruce.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour’s trajectory towards one nation Toryism is continuing apace.

 

 


 

A Theresa May staffer. 
 

Quote

Gogglebox star Josh Tapper has quit his job at 10 Downing Street one year after trading his TV career for politics…  

 

During his time in Number 10, Josh was a campaign assistant for the Prime Minister's Office and Cabinet Office before working as assistant campaign manager.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

Hi Gnosher, 

 

Long time no me calling you a fucking idiot.

 

Anyhows, that literally says what you have accused me of saying, I'm sure that was the intention, right, and not some weird invented argument you had in your demented fucking mind, right?

 

Though I have been saying it for ages and have just been proven right by the article you just posted, so cheers for that, my internet kudos will never be higher.

 

Anyway, have a good evening you utter fucking moron.

 

Love and stuff,

Bruce.

 

 

 

 

These middle classed charlatans are strange little fellas. Sadly for the rest of us they're also part of the reason the general public wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole.

 

Have a bit of Labour Party history Spanner, with not an investment banker or gas guzzling Bentley in sight,

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Labour’s trajectory towards one nation Toryism is continuing apace.

 

 


 

A Theresa May staffer. 
 

 

The games up. The right are not concerned with winning the next election only on ridding the left from British mainstream politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Have a bit of Labour Party history Spanner, with not an investment banker or gas guzzling Bentley in sight,

 

 

 

What you don't mention is that 24 of those 29 MPs were elected in constituencies where the Liberals stood aside to avoid splitting the anti-Conservative vote.

 

So either you don't know as much history as you should, or you choose to ignore that history, because it demonstrates the enduring wisdom of the left working with those nearer the political centre rather than against them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

What you don't mention is that 24 of those 29 MPs were elected in constituencies where the Liberals stood aside to avoid splitting the anti-Conservative vote.

 

So either you don't know as much history as you should, or you choose to ignore that history, because it demonstrates the enduring wisdom of the left working with those nearer the political centre rather than against them.

Dosnt that suggest that the libs were a good deal more to the left and more in touch with the man in the street than they are today? Same with Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

 

I think a lot of people were scared under Corby because of the manifesto. It promised

 

A million climate jobs

A £400 billion "national transformation fund"

A national and regional investment banks with £250 billion

A £150 billion social transformation fund

Year on year public section pay increases starting at 5%

Increasing health expenditure by 4.3% per year

Free broadband

A National Education Service

A National Energy Agency

A National Care Service

 

Free Broadband

Free Lifelong learning

 

And that's just a starting point. I think a lot of people were worried whether our currency could even take those kind of spending increases. Bear in mind that the above is a mere sliver of what is promised and its already in the trillions (I doubt "a million" climate jobs come cheap). 

 

 

I'm guessing the public sector pay increases were to make up for 8 years of pay feezes.

That broadband idea certainly would have been useful during tie pandamemic.

Wasmt there supposed to be money raised through renationalisation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

There's a train of thought that Starmer was never supposed to win an election but rather was supposed to "squat" the leadership for long enough to pass rules preventing another Corbyn from arising. Given that those rule changes have been made it looks likely that this was the case. 

 

 

 

Yeah god forbid they appoint someone with actual principles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheDrowningMan said:

The 2019 manifesto was incompetent and said too much, but in practice the Tories have been proving time after time that finding / printing money is very, very easy when you don’t have to pretend you can’t because you’re on an ideological crusade to dismantle services and snuff out 100,000+ lives.

 

Had Labour settled on a (soft) Brexit policy post-2017, they might find themselves in a far better position today. Instead, Corbyn dallied miserably and allowed Starmer, in thrall to all manner of useless “people’s vote” unicorns, to finally embrace the second referendum in the run up to an election that initially saw the Tories polling at an all-time low due to their own failure to follow through on Brexit, making it all too easy to be cast aside as a party intent on ignoring “the will of the people”.

Labour were in a no wim position over Brexit. 

It's easy to say all this soft Brexit stuff in hindsight but the most logical option would have been a 2md referendum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Yeah god forbid they appoint someone with actual principles. 

Broadly speaking I agree. While I wasn't on board with Corbynism for reasons given, the anti-democratic shift in the Labour is genuinely sinister. It really bothers me as a democrat and a lot of people find it to be unacceptable. It isn't getting ones house in order it is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

Broadly speaking I agree. While I wasn't on board with Corbynism for reasons given, the anti-democratic shift in the Labour is genuinely sinister. It really bothers me as a democrat and a lot of people find it to be unacceptable. It isn't getting ones house in order it is very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

I'd would be interesting to see where they actually think starmer is going to pick up votes.

He has alienated the left.

The red wall certainly domt trust him.

Unless he is gambling on a huge swing from traditional tories?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

I'd would be interesting to see where they actually think starmer is going to pick up votes.

He has alienated the left.

The red wall certainly domt trust him.

Unless he is gambling on a huge swing from traditional tories?

You've answered your own question. People think he is going to pick up votes in the "blue wall"; the shires around London. This has happened to a small extent but many such people are going to the Greens and Lib Dems. 

 

Even if Starmer did pick up the entire blue wall it would still not be enough to win him an election. Its not mathematically possible. 

 

I think the real strategy is as I've said - squat the leadership long enough to pass the rules that mean there can never be another Corbyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

You've answered your own question. People think he is going to pick up votes in the "blue wall"; the shires around London. This has happened to a small extent but many such people are going to the Greens and Lib Dems. 

 

Even if Starmer did pick up the entire blue wall it would still not be enough to win him an election. Its not mathematically possible. 

 

I think the real strategy is as I've said - squat the leadership long enough to pass the rules that mean there can never be another Corbyn. 

Does that mean burnham is out of the equation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jordy Brouwer said:

It would be borrowing to invest on a colossal scale. It would only be a good thing if it had a debt productivity ratio of more than 1, meaning that each pound spent would have to at least yield a pound increase in national output.

 

Given that that ratio has been falling for years and that a lot of this "investment" goes on salaries and is unlikely to have a particularly high return on capital, how likely do you think it is that this spending would have a positive debt productivity ratio? If it had a negative ratio, and frankly it would then it would  be saddling future generations with debts that would be increasingly difficult to pay. 

 

If spending is just generally good then surely the only problem with Labour's 2019 manifesto is that it didn't promise enough spending. If spending is good and concerns over debt, productivity and debt productivity are irrelevant then surely ten trillion in new spending would have been better than a mere two. Why not twenty? Isn't it all good? 

 

Do you see the problems?

Nobody is saying "spending is just generally good" or that concerns over debt are "irrelevant" (that's the kind of deliberate misrepresentation that Tories and their media love).

 

Here's a costed, balanced manifesto.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto-2019/

 

And here's the idealistic but economically illiterate student radicals of Rathbones.

 

https://www.rathbones.com/knowledge-and-insight/investment-update-dealing-rising-uk-debt-not-all-options-are-bad

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden pretty much won his election by staying stum and letting Trump destroy himself. Johnson is doing a fantastic job of destroying himself its just nobody is noticing. Starmer is to clever to be this stupid, he has to have a plan and my guess is its the above. Let Brexit and Johnson's mouth/dick destroy themselves and be there to pick up the pieces. Landing punches now are worthless in the overall scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, No2 said:

Biden pretty much won his election by staying stum and letting Trump destroy himself. Johnson is doing a fantastic job of destroying himself its just nobody is noticing. Starmer is to clever to be this stupid, he has to have a plan and my guess is its the above. Let Brexit and Johnson's mouth/dick destroy themselves and be there to pick up the pieces. Landing punches now are worthless in the overall scheme of things.

That's a risky strategy imo.

Johnson seems more popular than ever among the electorate and starmer is widely viewed as a non entity.

Surely you need something about you?

Biden at least has a degree of gravitas. 

Starmer has no personality whatsoever.

And the closer we get to an election you can absolutely guarantee the Tory propaganda show will be full stream ahead

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

Labour were in a no wim position over Brexit. 

It's easy to say all this soft Brexit stuff in hindsight but the most logical option would have been a 2md referendum. 

I agree. I thought "we'll negotiate a Brexit deal that doesn't fuck you up the arse and then we'll let you decide whether you want it" was the best approach; unfortunately, "best" turned out to be a massive vote-loser, because millions of people were so determined not to have another referendum that they decided to treat a General Election like a referendum. Go figure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...