Keir Starmer

[Arniepie]

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Johnson may be unpopular but the Scottish Torys are doing a lot better than Scottish Labour, this after Scotland has been plagued with a massive drug death crisis and an NHS in ruins. The Scots have rejected the Labour Party.

It's been like that since new labour though hasn't it?

I'm not starmers biggest fan but I'm not sure the blame cam be pinned on him for that.

[Section_31]

With regards Wales and Scotland, while I don't disagree Starmer's ineptitudes have had an impact, there will be nationalism at play too. 

 

The SNP, Johnson's Tories are inward looking, nationalist parties and that's how politics goes during the bad times. Same to a lesser extent with Welsh Labour, yes it's labour, but it's run Wales separately during the outbreak and the electorate's perception of it will be that it's essentially a Wales first party, which is fair enough. 

 

As I say, Liverpool could learn lessons and create its own political culture.

[Mudface]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

It's been like that since new labour though hasn't it?

I'm not starmers biggest fan but I'm not sure the blame cam be pinned on him for that.

Scotland was lost under Milliband when he stupidly joined the Tories in advocating a No vote in the indie ref. Scottish Labour is utter wank and have learned nothing since.

 

 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

It's been like that since new labour though hasn't it?

I'm not starmers biggest fan but I'm not sure the blame cam be pinned on him for that.

Starmer helped put a leader in Scotland that has unsurprisingly proven unpopular with the Scottish people. Starmer imposed a remain candidate in Hartlepool who unsurprisingly proved unpopular with the local public. Starmer is in the process of putting up a candidates policy in England which will also probably prove to be unpopular with the English voters. 

[Gnasher]

9 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

With regards Wales and Scotland, while I don't disagree Starmer's ineptitudes have had an impact, there will be nationalism at play too. 

 

The SNP, Johnson's Tories are inward looking, nationalist parties and that's how politics goes during the bad times. Same to a lesser extent with Welsh Labour, yes it's labour, but it's run Wales separately during the outbreak and the electorate's perception of it will be that it's essentially a Wales first party, which is fair enough. 

 

As I say, Liverpool could learn lessons and create its own political culture.

Oh I don't know, that Labour leader has gone down like a lead balloon with the voters up there. The one rule with Scottish voters is don't try to enforce your will on them, that's what the English Labour party have done and the results have been depressingly predictable.

 

Edit; not sure all the blame can be leveled at Starmer himself it's just the way Labour seems to operate these days, the locals are ignored.

[Arniepie]

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Starmer helped put a leader in Scotland that has unsurprisingly proven unpopular with the Scottish people. Starmer imposed a remain candidate in Hartlepool who unsurprisingly proved unpopular with the local public. Starmer is in the process of putting up a candidates policy in England which will also probably prove to be unpopular with the English voters. 

I'm not defending him in the slightest, I'm saying labours fall from grace in Scotland, began.well before last year.

[Section_31]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Oh I don't know, that Labour leader has gone down like a lead balloon with the voters up there. The one rule with Scottish voters is don't try to enforce your will on them, that's what the English Labour party have done and the results have been depressingly predictable.

 

Edit; not sure all the blame can be leveled at Starmer himself it's just the way Labour seems to operate these days, the locals are ignored.

I think Scottish politics, certainly since 2017, has become a straight fight between SNP and Tories because the Tories are seen as unionist. The battle is independent Vs Union, it's impossible to see where Labour fits into that battle, regardless of who is leader.

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I think Scottish politics, certainly since 2017, has become a straight fight between SNP and Tories because the Tories are seen as unionist. The battle is independent Vs Union, it's impossible to see where Labour fits into that battle, regardless of who is leader.

Yeah that's true, as Mudface said when Labour came out as 'No' in the Scottish union referendum they alienated a lot of traditional voters.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

58 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

There is a part of me that’s really wants them to have a proper shit show up here. Which isn’t a nice feeling really. 
 

The party arrogance was shown up in the last 4 elections. People will get fucked off eventually.

There’s a lot  of unraveling of Joe Anderson’s council going on and that’s going to play into peoples minds as well. For as much as Joanne Anderson might have the right plan, people don’t forget Labour fuck ups like they forget Tory ones (more outside of Liverpool that though)

 

The only problem for me is that if they do have a shit show, there is a chance that it could end up worse.
 

As long as the Lib Dem’s or Greens got in I don’t think that would be nowhere as bad a scenario to the Tories getting their mitts on the city. Small chance I know, but still enough for those cunts. 

In the Council by-elections, it would be no bad thing if Luke Akehurst's candidates lost all three seats to Greens or Socialists.

[sir roger]

Labour increased from 1 Scots mp to 13 in 2017.

[Jordy Brouwer]

11 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

More than 1? Piece of piss.

There's just no way that these investments don't pay for themselves (even if they were, as you incorrectly imply, wholly funded by borrowing), both in simple terms of "put a pound in, get lots of pounds out" and much more so in terms of the savings from preparedness for climate change.

 

If an employer pays a worker, say, £15 an hour, they expect output worth more than £15 an hour, or they just wouldn't employ them; the same applies to the jobs mentioned here. Moreover, workers' wages go back into the economy - spent on goods and services, which is why you see very few welders or waiters named in the Pandora Papers. And if those workers were previously unemployed, then the Government saves whatever benefits it was previously paying them.   

Quote

It's wrong to look on that pledge of a million green jobs as a burden, because Government spending on productive jobs boosts GDP.

 

The investment banks and investment funds are set up to lend money. As soon as they make a loan, that is shown as an asset in the national balance sheet; and rightly so. Then, of course, the borrowers do productive stuff (employ people, make goods, provide services) which adds to GDP and they also repay the loans.

 

The National Education Service didn't come with any spending promises: just a pledge to work with other parties and different stakeholders to come up with an approach to education that people could view the same way we view the NHS.

Lifelong learning opportunities are the best way to ensure you have a skilled and efficient national workforce, so there's plenty of payback there.

 

Free broadband is now recognised as a necessary public good, just like free roads and footpaths.

 

The care system absolutely needs investment to repair the damage of underfunding and too much public money going to dodgy private operators. There's no obvious economic payback from investment there, but as a rich country we can afford to let people see out their days in dignity. It won't register in GDP, but it will make the country better.

 

All told, there's nothing scary there at all.

 

 

Its trillions of pounds of spending. It would have to be funded by borrowing Angry its trillions of pounds of new spending in a country that already can't pay its bills. 

A question I asked you was if 2 trillion in new spending is good because it all pays for itself in a virtuous circle of public sector benevolence then why not 10 trillion, or 20 trillion. 

 

You know the answer, its because the dogma you have adumbrated actually does have limits. 

 

With trillions of spending you will get malinvestments on a grand scale. You actually explain in your reply that employers won't pay a wage if they don't expect a certain output. That's why the private sector isn't magicing a million green jobs out of thin air. If the government forces it you will get non-productive investments and malinvestments and crowd out better and more efficient private investments. 

 

Quote

More than 1? Piece of piss.

Nope not even close to being close and the greater the orgy of spending and crowding out the private sector the less close it will be. 

 

Please do answer my question through (by the way your previous reply was inaccurate - you have asserted that spending or investement is just "good" you did so in your first reply. Also you do clearly not see debt or bad investment being much of a problem - you literally explain why you believe that in your next reply.)

 

If several trillion pounds of spending pays for itself (and more!) then surely the problem with Labours manifesto in 2019 was that it did not pledge enough. Why not five trillion? Or ten trillion? 

 

If you can answer that question honestly then I think you will have to engage with some of the problems I'm raising. 

 

"Nothing scary" about this? I have to disagree.

 

 

[Arniepie]

I'm utterly clueless at economics but it seems to that if you cut and cut and create nothingg,the economy suffers as there are more people with less people in.their pockets

Austerity being the obvious example. 

Whereas if you create jobs and opportunities people will spend more and the economy benefits

Obviously extremely basic I know

 

[Gnasher]

14 hours ago, Arniepie said:

I'm utterly clueless at economics but it seems to that if you cut and cut and create nothingg,the economy suffers as there are more people with less people in.their pockets

Austerity being the obvious example. 

Whereas if you create jobs and opportunities people will spend more and the economy benefits

Obviously extremely basic I know

 

Extremely bang on the money.

[Section_31]

14 hours ago, Arniepie said:

I'm utterly clueless at economics but it seems to that if you cut and cut and create nothingg,the economy suffers as there are more people with less people in.their pockets

Austerity being the obvious example. 

Whereas if you create jobs and opportunities people will spend more and the economy benefits

Obviously extremely basic I know

 

 

That's pretty much it. Countries boom when the working class have money to spend (think 50s America, Joe six pack buying cars, fridges, televisions etc which in turn had to be manufactured which gave other people well paid jobs who in turn bought stuff too, creating more jobs. 

 

Sure I read somewhere that under President Eisenhower, who was considered right wing, the rich were paying 90% tax.

 

Over the decades the rich have shifted more of that money from everyday people's pockets info their own. Most of it ends up in Swiss bank accounts or offshore funds, doing nothing except accruing interest, keeping nobody gainfully emoloyed save for the occasional yacht builder.

 

When you do that, it's like taking blood out of a body. Sooner or later it starts to die.

 

Rather than put that blood back in, because their nature is to just keep taking, they instead elected to pump the body with adrenaline.

 

If the working class consumer had no money to consume (which you think would be important in a consumer economy) they gave us cheap debt instead. 

 

That cheap debt imploded the economy, so did they take a step back? No, they doubled down. They instigated austerity, the massive transfer of public assets into private hands, mass house repossessions and the rest of it. Meanwhile you got the rise of a poverty industry. Shops and pubs replaced on high streets with payday loan companies, pawnbrokers, cheap fast food and nail bars staffed by slaves.

 

Once they'd juiced all of that and there really were no more pennies under our collective sofa cushions they could steel, they've moved on to phase three, juicing the only people who've got money left, the British taxpayer. PPE contracts to people's mates with no experience of making it, but that's just the start. Government contracts that go to pals but won't deliver proper services will be the future now.

 

It's a one way journey to financial oblivion, but like the climate crisis, they know this - they simply don't care, because their ranks are bulging with high functioning psychopaths. 

 

The US treasury bloke who was in the midst of the banking crisis did an interview once about how when it all kicked off he gathered loads of the big bank bosses in a room and told them if they didn't sort things out it was basically the end of western economics as we knew it, and he said a few of them were making excuses to leave the room and make phonecalls to try and make money out of it.

 

I honestly don't think the man and woman in the street appreciates the levels of depravity we're dealing with. If some of these folks could nuke a city in exchange for ten grand in the bank, they wouldn't bat an eyelid.

 

[Anubis]

 

 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

 

The greens are destroying Labour in Bristol.

[Harry's Lad]

15 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

The greens are destroying Labour in Bristol.

The Greens are starting to look like a much more attractive proposition.

 

They won't  get in power, certainly not in my lifetime, but their policies are more in line with my thinking considering the direction Starmer is taking the party I've voted for for 40 years in.

 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Harry's Lad said:

The Greens are starting to look like a much more attractive proposition.

 

They won't  get in power, certainly not in my lifetime, but their policies are more in line with my thinking considering the direction Starmer is taking the party I've voted for for 40 years in.

 

 I think a lot of people are thinking along the same lines.

[Jairzinho]

If we had PR I wouldn't even have to consider voting for Starmer and his gang of empty suits. 

[Anubis]

 

 

[Gnasher]

9 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

 

I suppose hoping Starmer and the Labour Party to show the same sort of angst against the Conservative party is a bit too much to ask.

[Anubis]

Too busy fighting Lefties at a massive cost.

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/15/labour-spending-more-on-legal-battles-than-campaigning-sources?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
 

[Creator Supreme]

25 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

 

Well they're doing their very best to slit their own throats in that case! It will end up with Liverpool council going Lib Dem for starters and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few tories grab a few of the 'posher' seats. Eventually it will end up with a Lib Dem and Green split.

 

Edit: They're doing the same in Knowsley too, they've already lost Prescot and Whiston to us Green's and the Lib Dems, and they keeping losing Halewood to Independents. I think this is more down to ineptitude at running the council than fighting the left if I'm honest though!

[Anubis]

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 16/10/2021 at 12:04, Jordy Brouwer said:

you have asserted that spending or investement is just "good" you did so in your first reply. 

There's your problem. You keep talking about spending and investment as if they were the same thing (which they're clearly not). You also act as if borrowing is the only source of Government revenue (which it clearly isn't).

 

The rest of your arguments are built on those obvious falsehoods, so they're bound to be wrong.