Keir Starmer

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

I'd love that to happen, but it never would.

Starmer is Toby right now. He’s looking at the softer language. 
 

Edit: context to my inane chuntering. 
 

 

[Arniepie]

Be surprised if the liberals went anywhere near the Tories again after the kicking they got last time.

[Gnasher]

Starmer rows back on public ownership but the lame excuse its all about winning doesn't hold water considering taking back energy and rail are popular with the public. He basically lied.

 

 

 

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Starmer rows back on public ownership but the lame excuse its all about winning doesn't hold water considering taking back energy and rail are popular with the public. He basically lied.

 

 

 

 

 

If that's the same thing that was posted on here yesterday, he said the economy is not in the same place. And he's right. It would seem would couldn't just take these industries back, it would cost money and the country is fucked after putting money in the pockets of the mates of Tories for 2 years through covid. You can't possibly expect anyone to make the same economic calls today as they would have 2 years ago, he'd be a fucking bellend if he did. 

[Gnasher]

22 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

If that's the same thing that was posted on here yesterday, he said the economy is not in the same place. And he's right. It would seem would couldn't just take these industries back, it would cost money and the country is fucked after putting money in the pockets of the mates of Tories for 2 years through covid. You can't possibly expect anyone to make the same economic calls today as they would have 2 years ago, he'd be a fucking bellend if he did. 

He stood for the Labour leadership on a promise to take energy back into public hands. The policy is popular amongst the public.

 

His excuse on going back on that promise is he wants to win the next election but his excuse does not hold water, its a popular and needed policy. If that is not his belief he shouldnt have promised it. He just comes across as disingenuous.

[Anubis]

Wasn’t sure where to put this but It’s good to see a bit of a Union resurgence going on.

 

 

[Barrington Womble]

6 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

He stood for the Labour leadership on a promise to take energy back into public hands. The policy is popular amongst the public.

 

His excuse on going back on that promise is he wants to win the next election but his excuse does not hold water, its a popular and needed policy. If that is not his belief he shouldnt have promised it. He just comes across as disingenuous.

So what you're saying is we need a populist leader of the labour party, not a responsible, pragmatic one? 

[Gnasher]

Just now, Barrington Womble said:

So what you're saying is we need a populist leader of the labour party, not a responsible, pragmatic one? 

No I believe that's the line Starmers taking. I believe taking back utilities is responsible and pragmatic. Privatisation has ruined this country these past forty years. The public have been lumbered with sky high costs for services which are second rate. 

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Wasn’t sure where to put this but It’s good to see a bit of a Union resurgence going on.

 

 

So called "hard left' union leaders are now more in tune with public opinion than all our main political parties.

[Barrington Womble]

42 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

No I believe that's the line Starmers taking. I believe taking back utilities is responsible and pragmatic. Privatisation has ruined this country these past forty years. The public have been lumbered with sky high costs for services which are second rate. 

Your post literally said they were popular policies. So that would mean you believe he's choosing to go with unpopular policies, which seems as far from populist as you can get. 

 

We've got 2 years of destruction ahead of us from these cunts. And absolutely no idea what state the economy will be in by the end of 2024. The cost of borrowing is increasing and likely to increase more between now and then and it would be fair to assume that bringing back these utilities into public ownership wouldn't be free, in fact it would likely be incredibly costly - I seem to recall estimates of £200bn when it was in labours 2019 manifesto. 

 

I'm not saying nationalisation of these companies should be off the agenda or privatisation hasn't been a bad thing (in fact I believe we should nationalise them) but it would seem foolish to think after all the money wasted in the last 2 years, an economy on its knees we can guarantee embarking on this type of buyout. It should certainly be an aim of any Labour government, but it would be irresponsible to guarantee it regardless.  

 

[Gnasher]

11 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

Your post literally said they were popular policies. So that would mean you believe he's choosing to go with unpopular policies, which seems as far from populist as you can get. 

 

No one of Starmers excuses for disbanding taking energy into public ownership was he wants to win the next election so implying re nationalising energy/rail etc dosn't chime with the electorate. All recent polls says the opposite. Its both popular and pragmatic, its not a choice of one over the other.

11 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We've got 2 years of destruction ahead of us from these cunts. And absolutely no idea what state the economy will be in by the end of 2024. The cost of borrowing is increasing and likely to increase more between now and then and it would be fair to assume that bringing back these utilities into public ownership will be free, in fact it would likely be incredibly costly - I seem to recall estimates of £200bn when it was in labours 2019 manifesto. 

 

I'm not saying nationalisation of these companies should be off the agenda or privatisation hasn't been a bad thing (in fact I believe we should nationalise them) but it would seem foolish to think after all the money wasted in the last 2 years, an economy on its knees we can guarantee embarking on this type of buyout. It should certainly be an aim of any Labour government, but it would be irresponsible to guarantee it regardless.  

 

 

OK fair enough, points well made and points taken. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

35 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

So what you're saying is we need a populist leader of the labour party, not a responsible, pragmatic one? 

What the resident angry little man doesn’t seem to get is that you don’t win on national popular opinion on one policy l, you win by targeting swing areas and not allowing the press and opponent to constantly slam you over policies or positions that they can slam you for over and over. He also doesn’t mention that Starmer spoke about pragmatism because of the vastly different economic situation to when he made the pledge. I said at the time I wish he hadn’t promised it, not because I don’t want common ownership in those markets, I do, but because of the cost and the priorities. It’s something for later, and he needs to just get in and win. 

 

Its funny to see him posting the same links and videos over and over, as if he is somehow trying to convince people. 

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

No one of Starmers excuses for disbanding taking energy into public ownership was he wants to win the next election so implying re nationalising energy/rail etc dosn't chime with the electorate. All recent polls says the opposite. Its both popular and pragmatic, its not a choice of one over the other.

 

OK fair enough, points well made and points taken. 

maybe i need to watch the video you posted today. the bit i saw yesterday from LBC he said something like the country is not in the same position as when he made those promises. Which I took to mean we're fucked and some of the dreams of 2 years ago are further from being reality than ever thanks to the damage  these cunts have done. 

[Gnasher]

16 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

maybe i need to watch the video you posted today. the bit i saw yesterday from LBC he said something like the country is not in the same position as when he made those promises. Which I took to mean we're fucked and some of the dreams of 2 years ago are further from being reality than ever thanks to the damage  these cunts have done. 

He did and we are not. He also said his main concern is winning (fair enough) the next election and gave that as one of his reasons for dropping his former commitments, ie, taking energy/rail back into public ownership. That claim is unfounded. As ive already stated taking energy/rail etc into public ownership is a popular policy. The backtracking on that and other commitments makes him sound disingenuous.

 

Anyway we seem to be going around in circles so i will leave it for others to make their own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

That claim is unfounded. As ive already stated taking energy/rail etc into public ownership is a popular policy.

Repeatedly saying something is unfounded doesn't make something unfounded. It's not popular with some of the voters in the swing areas he will be focusing on. That's the foundation for the comment. 

 

Any chance you can post the video a fourth time so that you can make sure people see it. 

[Gnasher]

9 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Repeatedly saying something is unfounded doesn't make something unfounded. It's not popular with some of the voters in the swing areas he will be focusing on.

I suppose asking for some evidence on your claim it's not popular in swing seats would be futile.

Quote

That's the foundation for the comment. 

 

Any chance you can post the video a fourth time so that you can make sure people see it. 

Nah.

[Gnasher]

Poll.

 

https://labourlist.org/2022/03/exclusive-majority-of-uk-backs-public-ownership-of-energy-firms-poll-shows/

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

I suppose asking for evidence on the claim it's not popular in swing seats would be futile.

Nah.

Why do you suppose it would be futile? I'm always happy to back up what I say, either with solid facts and data or just with the evidence and reasoning that indicates it is true. You're the one who doesn't do that, Gnasher; you're the one who doesn't answer questions about your made up comments. I'm more than happy to explain myself.

 

The reason I said that 'it's not popular with some of the voters in the swing areas he will be focusing on' is because in England there's large Tory-held areas where Labour can win, either because the Tory vote is split with Liberal Democrats or because there's a straight fight between Labour and the other party (click here for source). These are the areas they'll be focusing on to reduce the large majority for the Conservatives. 

 

Now, with most of these areas being a Tory majority, you can judge their views based on the long established ideology of conservatism and how the Tories generally act in elections to win these seats. Surely you wouldn't deny that the Tories generally don't favour nationalisation. That is the first clear indication of why 'some voters' in certain 'swing areas' won't buy into it. You and I might think these people are stupid cunts, and I do, but we can't deny the importance of their vote when it comes to winning an election. 

 

The second reason I say it is because I've seen how the media act when it's proposed, and so have you. When Corbyn wanted to do it, the push back was mega. I can give you sources an examples for that if you want, but you will have read it yourself. We know how powerful the media is in this country when it comes to winning votes and turning elections. The bottom line here is that Labour have to win some votes from soft Tories if it wants to win the election. These soft Tories are, generally speaking, ideologically opposed to big state, borrowing money, etc, etc. One can comfortably deduce that these people won't take the rabid headlines in the Mail or the pledge to spend hundreds of billions on renationalisation well. Ergo, they continue to vote Tory and won't vote Labour. That's bad in these areas where only a few percent swing can win the seat. 

 

1 minute ago, Gnasher said:

Poll.

 

https://labourlist.org/2022/03/exclusive-majority-of-uk-backs-public-ownership-of-energy-firms-poll-shows/

Nobody has suggested it isn't popular across the entire country. It'll likely be especially popular up north, in Scotland, in Wales, and in parts of London. That polling was from 2000 people across the UK, which is fine when judging how the nation thinks in general, but Labour will be doing their own polling in these swing areas in England and it'll be painting a different picture. Large parts of England are a different breed when it comes to politics.

 

That link above from LabourList shows that 28% are strongly in favour. The rest are either undecided or only leaning towards it, but that would suggest it's not a very important factor for them (otherwise they would have said 'strongly'). So, when you consider the expense, the media chuntering about how Labour are going to spend a quadrillion quid on it and send us all into debt and tax rises and yadda, yadda, and the importance of those voters is Tory-held swing areas who either don't want it, or will be swayed by what the media say about economic competence and borrowing money, then you can only really come to the conclusion that now isn't the right time to pin your colours to it. 

 

Look, Labour need to win first and then build themselves up so they can do some of this stuff. If they rock the boat too hard, go too radical, they'll get some fanatical support but ultimately they'll fall to the same fate as the previous attempts. He has been ridiculed for focus groups and polling leading his approach, but he needs to be smart and win the votes where they're most likely to win seats. It fucking sucks, and I want utilities and transport to be nationalised, but setting off the media in a 'we are already 2 Trillion in debt, this economic calamity will cost...' parade will damage Labour's ability to win the election. 

[Barrington Womble]

57 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

He did and we are not. He also said his main concern is winning (fair enough) the next election and gave that as one of his reasons for dropping his former commitments, ie, taking energy/rail back into public ownership. That claim is unfounded. As ive already stated taking energy/rail etc into public ownership is a popular policy. The backtracking on that and other commitments makes him sound disingenuous.

 

Anyway we seem to be going around in circles so i will leave it for others to make their own conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

agree to disagree then. but where public ownership is of these services, I think I will take his words that he used directly from that question. it feels to me you are just absolutely desperate for Starmer to fuck up and it is more important for Starmer to fuck up than it is to be rid of these cunts. 

[Gnasher]

4 minutes ago, Hank Moody said:

Why do you suppose it would be futile? I'm always happy to back up what I say, either with solid facts and data or just with the evidence and reasoning that indicates it is true. You're the one who doesn't do that, Gnasher; you're the one who doesn't answer questions about your made up comments. I'm more than happy to explain myself.

 

The reason I said that 'it's not popular with some of the voters in the swing areas he will be focusing on' is because in England there's large Tory-held areas where Labour can win, either because the Tory vote is split with Liberal Democrats or because there's a straight fight between Labour and the other party (click here for source). These are the areas they'll be focusing on to reduce the large majority for the Conservatives. 

 

Now, with most of these areas being a Tory majority, you can judge their views based on the long established ideology of conservatism and how the Tories generally act in elections to win these seats. Surely you wouldn't deny that the Tories generally don't favour nationalisation. That is the first clear indication of why 'some voters' in certain 'swing areas' won't buy into it. You and I might think these people are stupid cunts, and I do, but we can't deny the importance of their vote when it comes to winning an election. 

 

The second reason I say it is because I've seen how the media act when it's proposed, and so have you. When Corbyn wanted to do it, the push back was mega. I can give you sources an examples for that if you want, but you will have read it yourself. We know how powerful the media is in this country when it comes to winning votes and turning elections. The bottom line here is that Labour have to win some votes from soft Tories if it wants to win the election. These soft Tories are, generally speaking, ideologically opposed to big state, borrowing money, etc, etc. One can comfortably deduce that these people won't take the rabid headlines in the Mail or the pledge to spend hundreds of billions on renationalisation well. Ergo, they continue to vote Tory and won't vote Labour. That's bad in these areas where only a few percent swing can win the seat. 

 

Nobody has suggested it isn't popular across the entire country. It'll likely be especially popular up north, in Scotland, in Wales, and in parts of London. That polling was from 2000 people across the UK, which is fine when judging how the nation thinks in general, but Labour will be doing their own polling in these swing areas in England and it'll be painting a different picture. Large parts of England are a different breed when it comes to politics.

 

That link above from LabourList shows that 28% are strongly in favour. The rest are either undecided or only leaning towards it, but that would suggest it's not a very important factor for them (otherwise they would have said 'strongly'). So, when you consider the expense, the media chuntering about how Labour are going to spend a quadrillion quid on it and send us all into debt and tax rises and yadda, yadda, and the importance of those voters is Tory-held swing areas who either don't want it, or will be swayed by what the media say about economic competence and borrowing money, then you can only really come to the conclusion that now isn't the right time to pin your colours to it. 

 

Look, Labour need to win first and then build themselves up so they can do some of this stuff. If they rock the boat too hard, go too radical, they'll get some fanatical support but ultimately they'll fall to the same fate as the previous attempts. He has been ridiculed for focus groups and polling leading his approach, but he needs to be smart and win the votes where they're most likely to win seats. It fucking sucks, and I want utilities and transport to be nationalised, but setting off the media in a 'we are already 2 Trillion in debt, this economic calamity will cost...' parade will damage Labour's ability to win the election. 

You could've just said no.

[Gnasher]

5 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

agree to disagree then. but where public ownership is of these services, I think I will take his words that he used directly from that question. it feels to me you are just absolutely desperate for Starmer to fuck up and it is more important for Starmer to fuck up than it is to be rid of these cunts. 

OK fair enough.

[Arniepie]

I genuinely don't get the argument against nationalisation apart from 70s era clichés. 

Look at the difference between the vaccine roll out (public)and track and trace (private)

That union fella was on 5 live the other night and was saying most of the train companies have foreign shareholder's so most of the money generated goes out of the country.

Surely if the Tories are so patriotic they would want the profit to be ploughed back into this country?

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Gnasher said:

You could've just said no.

As the days go by...

[Numero Veinticinco]

Something interesting that hasn't been mentioned so far from the interview on LBC, I suspect because it's embarrassing to those who want to paint him as some right-wing, union hater, is his comments about unions. I set the video to play, but the transcript is this.

 

'We have, with our Unions, crafted a green paper - draft legislation, ready for government - which sets out day-one employment rights which are stronger than anything we've seen in this country'. 

 

 

Also very interesting comments about abolishing the second chamber. He mentions Gordon Brown's commission on the future of the United Kingdom. Really important comment, for me, because I'm far more of a Brownite than I am a backer of anybody else in living memory. 

[Barrington Womble]

4 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

I genuinely don't get the argument against nationalisation apart from 70s era clichés. 

Look at the difference between the vaccine roll out (public)and track and trace (private)

That union fella was on 5 live the other night and was saying most of the train companies have foreign shareholder's so most of the money generated goes out of the country.

Surely if the Tories are so patriotic they would want the profit to be ploughed back into this country?

the tories aren't arsed because they'll get paid either way when they're awarding the franchise. award a franchise and then months later take up a role on a board of one of these companies for 500k for 8 hours work or something. their supporters are stupid and don't understand how we are getting fucked. Last night on Question Time the Tory was claiming we shouldn't give rail drivers a pay rise because it will fuel inflation, because the pay rise will put up the costs of the rail companies. But the rates the rail companies charge are set by the government and linked to inflation and not the inflation of their staff's wages. all stifling the wages of the people in the rail service does is increase the profits the rail franchises make because their pricing of tickets is directly linked to RPI. Each year our cost of fares goes up by RPI+1%. So next years price rise will be linked to inflation of this month - likely to exceed 10%, so we can expect an 11% rise. Any pay raise less than 11% for the staff is all profits for cunts like trenitalia. 

 

the only argument i see against nationalisation now is cost. to take back those franchises would cost a fortune, money we would need to borrow. i would think though once they expire down the line, surely there is no guarantee we can't just take them back? maybe i misunderstand but i think the government runs the tracks already, it's just the stations and the trains we don't run.