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

Just now, Moo said:

I suppose that's what I'm asking. Is the plan to win fans, or to help people?

It wouldn't seem suited to doing either really.

Well, I'd say capping yearly cost of the bills to 1.9k instead of the 4.2k at a cost of 29bn counts as helping people to be honest. I don't think it's an ideal plan - I'm not sure there is one that doesn't involve major policy changes as a fucking lot of debt - but this plan would go a long way to protecting people from serious hardship an debt, which I think is decent, and it does it at the expense of both the energy companies and by reducing inflation. So it's not terrible in terms of helping people or in terms of actually being implementable.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Well, I'd say capping yearly cost of the bills to 1.9k instead of the 4.2k at a cost of 29bn counts as helping people to be honest. I don't think it's an ideal plan - I'm not sure there is one that doesn't involve major policy changes as a fucking lot of debt - but this plan would go a long way to protecting people from serious hardship an debt, which I think is decent, and it does it at the expense of both the energy companies and by reducing inflation. So it's not terrible in terms of helping people or in terms of actually being implementable.  

But it won't help if the Tories don't adopt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moo said:

But it won't help if the Tories don't adopt it.

Ah, yes, that is indeed true of absolutely anything he says. He can't actually help people because he's out of power. So he either echoes Tory policy - which I'm sure will delight Labour supporters - or he just offers sensible, moderate policy, which is what this is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gnasher said:

Sensible moderate policy = bail out energy firms for ripping off taxpayers by using taxpayers money.

Then let them die of the cold. Fuck 'em. Or just sit and say 'don't pay them anything, take it all back for nothing', whilst they die of the cold. That's much more wholesome. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Then let them die of the cold. Fuck 'em. Or just sit and say 'don't pay them anything, take it all back for nothing', whilst they die of the cold. That's much more wholesome. 

Yep obviously no alternative. It's back Starmers plan or death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Yep obviously no alternative. It's back Starmers plan or death.

You realise the Tories are the ones who'll have to decide whether to go with it or not, yeah? If you think they're going to nationalise energy without paying fair wedge, then you're out of your mind. He could indeed say 'I back Gnasher', and then the Tories will laugh, fire up their media outlet friends, and go to fuckin' town. 

 

You can put ideology ahead of reality all you want, fuck all difference will be made. This at least has some chance and is fully budgeted and can actually help people. If it's not picked up by the government, yes, some people will die. You know this, surely, because it's a classic left-wing arguing point; nationalise and subsidise those are risk because they're dying of the cold. 

 

Anyway, I've spend more time on this than I should. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anubis said:

It would cost approximately £60b to renationalise energy. After that you control and set the price, you can keep it low, and when things are more stable use profits to update the infrastructure or invest in renewables. We have wasted nearly that on blag contracts for stuff like PPE, or in written off fraud. There is no reason not to say this is a viable proposal and argue for it. None at all. 

Can I see your workings out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

You realise the Tories are the ones who'll have to decide whether to go with it or not, yeah? If you think they're going to nationalise energy without paying fair wedge, then you're out of your mind. He could indeed say 'I back Gnasher', and then the Tories will laugh, fire up their media outlet friends, and go to fuckin' town. 

 

You can put ideology ahead of reality all you want, fuck all difference will be made. This at least has some chance and is fully budgeted and can actually help people. If it's not picked up by the government, yes, some people will die. You know this, surely, because it's a classic left-wing arguing point; nationalise and subsidise those are risk because they're dying of the cold. 

 

Anyway, I've spend more time on this than I should. 

Don't let the door...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

Numerous Captain hindsight shouts on the BBC website comments.

Now I'm not saying these people are clueless simpletons but I always thought hindsight was something you did after the event?

Gnasher must have loads of blag email addresses for all those accounts on the Beeb.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, skend04 said:

Gnasher must have loads of blag email addresses for all those accounts on the Beeb.

 

Any need cunty?

 

Let me remind you about the time you thought workers in run down areas can have no qualms for receiving poor wages.

 

Also the billionaire factory owners accordingly to you had to keep wages low because in your opinion people with little money ' hunt the meat Isles in Aldi and Lidl for 'cheap meat'

 

 

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...