Keir Starmer

[Gnasher]

Fab. Anyone agree with Reeves? (not a question for Section, he'll get upset) 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-margaret-thatcher-speech-economy-b2514949.html

 

It's fucking disgusting. It's a slur on those who suffered.

 

 

[Rushies tash]

2 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Fab. Anyone agree with Reeves? (not for Section, he'll get upset) 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-margaret-thatcher-speech-economy-b2514949.html

 

It's fucking disgusting. It's a slur on those who suffered.

 

 

 

I've read that a couple of times and she doesn't seem to mention the name Thatcher at all. In fact, she says that her version of growth will be different to Thatcher's.

[an tha]

1 hour ago, Gnasher said:

 

They can and we can. Labour are 20 plus points up in the polls because the public are sick of this tory government and sick of these tory policies. 

 

It's more surprising (even to those in the media, look at the Sky interview) why Reeves and Co haven't got an alternative fiscal plan to turn round the country.

 

Labour have a free hit, they have no excuses. No one in the country expects them to reinvent Thatcherism and no one in the country wants them to. 

The point is that the people they need to vote for them a lot of them (taking the stupid racists and xenophobes who let 'get brexit done' con them out the equation) didn't last time because they bought into the whole narrative about lab and the economy and they rejected out of hand the lab ideas.

 

Lab are now presenting a different potential approach that is designed to present a different approach and that is being slammed too. 

 

It has gone from 'lab are irresponsible and can't be trusted'.....So lab present what they believe is a more 'responsible' position and now it is descending into 'lab are just the same as the tories'

 

So what exactly are they meant to do?

 

Hopefully when they get into power they'll be able to show people - although with the state of what they are inheriting and the scorched earth policy the tory vermin will operate between now and the election, i dare say we'll still be in a mess in next 3-5 years and it will of course all be labs fault and the fucking idiots this country is full of will vote those tory bastards back in ....

[Gnasher]

11 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

 

I've read that a couple of times and she doesn't seem to mention the name Thatcher at all. In fact, she says that her version of growth will be different to Thatcher's.

 

Her basic guise seems Thatcher kick-started a decade of renewal (presumably after the up and downs of the Seventies). As Reeves has pinned her entire economic strategy on growth, economists are pointing out, the eighties growth was not too great, not great at all  I.E. the seventies are the wrong economic blueprint to aspire to. 

 

Reeves speech leaves more questions than answers, hence the confusion. A lot of it was similar to the Sunak speech from two years ago. 

 

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/reaction-as-rachel-reeves-pitches-herself-as-modern-day-margaret-thatcher-370638/

 

 

[Rushies tash]

3 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Her basic guise seems Thatcher kick-started a decade of renewal (presumably after the up and downs of the Seventies). As Reeves has pinned her entire economic strategy on growth, economists are pointing out, the eighties growth was not too great, not great at all  I.E. the seventies are the wrong economic blueprint to aspire to. 

 

Reeves speech leaves more questions than answers, hence the confusion. A lot of it was similar to the Sunak speech from two years ago. 

 

 

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/reaction-as-rachel-reeves-pitches-herself-as-modern-day-margaret-thatcher-370638/

 

 

 

I can see what you mean, but I still don't see an equivalence between the headlines and the content. She mentioned that the economy was similar at the end of the seventies and that she wants sustainable long term growth and an end to managed decline (which I believe was a Thatcher policy). The papers have decided the headline rather than Reeves. Don't have an opinion on her either way, but I'll say it again, she didn't say she was Thatcher at all.

[Arniepie]

2 hours ago, an tha said:

They can't win can they......constantly knocked as either irresponsible, reckless and unfunded blah blah blah even when it was - so they go out their way to show they aren't and get knocked for being same as or even worse than the tories and offering nothing new or different 

 

The tories ably backed by their media and public stupidity really have cornered them on this issue.

 

And any good ideas they do have and make noise about now would probably be stolen by the tories before the election.

 

 

Said it a million times

The priority is getting these cunts out.

I'll judge Labour if and when they get in power.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Headline writers love invoking Thatcher. She's the Candyman of British politics. 

[polymerpunkah]

3 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

I’ve seen some takedowns on this forum but Section might have just ran off with the green jacket 

 

Needs more "sneeveling".

 

 

[Gnasher]

6 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Headline writers love invoking Thatcher. She's the Candyman of British politics. 

 

As soon as Reeves mentioned 1979 the headlines wrote themselves. I think she would be fully aware how it would be received. 

 

Take away the Thatcher aspect and the speech was still promising a Conservative fiscal policy. If, as she says she's aiming for growth (fair enough) those fiscal rules she's lauding didn't produce growth in the eighties (not really sure what she was implying there) and it hasn't produced sustainable growth for the past fourteen years. 

 

 

 

 

And it's not just the left who are scratching their head at the content of her speech. 

 

[Gnasher]

Darren Jones is shadow chief treasurer. 

 

 

The only worthwhile growth in the eighties was the wealth of the rich and the length of the dole queues. 

 

 

 

 

For everyone else and society as a whole (although Thatcher claimed society under her no longer existed) it was a period of mass unemployment, extreme poverty and increased suicides. Reeves and Darren Jones can claim whatever they like, the terrible truth of that period is well documented. To call it a decade of renewal is an insult to the many millions who suffered. 

 

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2014/02/12/thatchers-policies-condemned-for-causing-unjust-premature-death/

 

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-health-legacy-former-3138706

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212082408.htm

 

 

[Gnasher]

 

 

 

 

[Gnasher]

14 hours ago, an tha said:

The point is that the people they need to vote for them a lot of them (taking the stupid racists and xenophobes who let 'get brexit done' con them out the equation) didn't last time because they bought into the whole narrative about lab and the economy and they rejected out of hand the lab ideas.

 

Lab are now presenting a different potential approach that is designed to present a different approach and that is being slammed too. 

 

It has gone from 'lab are irresponsible and can't be trusted'.....So lab present what they believe is a more 'responsible' position and now it is descending into 'lab are just the same as the tories'

 

So what exactly are they meant to do?

 

Hopefully when they get into power they'll be able to show people - although with the state of what they are inheriting and the scorched earth policy the tory vermin will operate between now and the election, i dare say we'll still be in a mess in next 3-5 years and it will of course all be labs fault and the fucking idiots this country is full of will vote those tory bastards back in ....

 

Most can understand her acting the steady Eddie but I don't think the period after 79 was particularly welcomed by the markets, it was blighted by two massive recessions and boom and bust, although in fairness Reeves did acknowledge the harm of the boom and bust Lawson years in her speech. The only thing Thatcher did for business was smash the trade unions. Big business thrived, the city boys made hay with the volatility of the newly opened stock markets (the word yuppie still gives me a chill) whilst thousands of small/medium sized businesses went to the wall.

 

 

I find the Labour front bench bringing up Thatcher, or that era odd. Not sure what's to be gained with it. The only people who'd welcome the return of those years are eighty year old dye in the wool Tories. Modern business wouldn't. 

 

A few good things in her speech, such as the abolition of the gig economy and curbs on zero hours contracts. Her plans to aim for a more consistent working environment (and her dig at new Labour) was intresting but imo justified. 

 

 

The rest of the speech was a load of tory waffle lifted from Sunak (link below, her answer is a bit bizzare). As you say, let's hope she's moves left when in power, the country needs it. At the moment though the signs are not good, although as she's staked her economic reputation on high growth if it doesn't materialise she may find her hand being forced to be more bold. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strontium]

13 hours ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

Headline writers love invoking Thatcher. She's the Candyman of British politics. 

 

The Daily Mash nailed it a decade ago

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-with-no-idea-who-thatcher-was-ecstatic-that-shes-dead-2013040865066

[Section_31]

[Gnasher]

Lucas is right (again) I'm not sure who's advising Sunak on this ridiculous line of questioning. At that time Sunak was short selling the country, he's lucky not to be in jail. 

 

Edit, as Nazir Afzal says here.

 

 

 

 

[Bjornebye]

Sunak again not answering a single question. 
 

Stephen Flynn nailing the tories and Labour quite brilliantly. 

[Arniepie]

pmq is a farce

it should just be an open debate

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Arniepie said:

pmq is a farce

it should just be an open debate

No, it should be a royal rumble, in a cage, with a Lion 

[Anubis]

17 hours ago, Section_31 said:

Living in present day Tory Britain and worrying about Labour is like the Elephant Man worrying about a spot.

 

It's not though, is it Mark. A change of government to Labour is supposed to make things better, be innovative, and make changes for the people at the bottom. All I see from the present Labour set up is more austerity and a nod and a wink to the wealthy and business people. Why shouldn't we be concerned about it if things aren't going to improve for the people who need it most? Your mum and the way she's been treated being a case in point.

[Gnasher]

6 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

It's not though, is it Mark. A change of government to Labour is supposed to make things better, be innovative, and make changes for the people at the bottom. All I see from the present Labour set up is more austerity and a nod and a wink to the wealthy and business people. Why shouldn't we be concerned about it if things aren't going to improve for the people who need it most? Your mum and the way she's been treated being a case in point.

 

Exellent. All I was trying to say, although you've said it much better. I wish their was a discernable difference between the two parties, I really do. Just not seeing it at the mo. 

[Jack the Sipper]

6 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

It's not though, is it Mark. A change of government to Labour is supposed to make things better, be innovative, and make changes for the people at the bottom. All I see from the present Labour set up is more austerity and a nod and a wink to the wealthy and business people. Why shouldn't we be concerned about it if things aren't going to improve for the people who need it most? Your mum and the way she's been treated being a case in point.

 

I'm guessing you were whingeing about the Labour opposition in 97 too, when the Tories had run the country into the ground, and didn't see the point a Labour party that promised to stick to the Tories spending budget and had Mandelson saying how incredibly relaxed he wad about people getting rich.

 

Looking back, do you think Blairs government were no different from the Tories, as so many socialists argued then?

[Section_31]

40 minutes ago, Anubis said:

 

It's not though, is it Mark. A change of government to Labour is supposed to make things better, be innovative, and make changes for the people at the bottom. All I see from the present Labour set up is more austerity and a nod and a wink to the wealthy and business people. Why shouldn't we be concerned about it if things aren't going to improve for the people who need it most? Your mum and the way she's been treated being a case in point.

 

But they're not gangsters though - a small improvement I know, but still.

 

People aren't comparing like for like, they're comparing Starmer's Labour party to - at worst - Cameron's 2010 mob or, at best, Blair (under which I personally lived quite happily).

 

The 'Tories' they're looking to replace have had Chancellors who've been fined a million quid for tax avoidance, people who've promoted unknown blonde strumpets to the Lords presumably in exchange for favours, two home secretaries who've tried to actively stoke race wars, a former deputy chair who claims the Mayor of London is controlled by Bin Laden, people who had lockdown parties, gave their mates Covid contracts, have second jobs with a right wing news channels, a former PM who attends conventions with Steve Bannon, they lie, cheat, steal and abuse at every opportunity. 

 

One party is a centrist party, the other is comprised now largely of gangsters funded by shady foreign money. There's no comparison whatsoever IMO. 

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

But they're not gangsters though - a small improvement I know, but still.

 

People aren't comparing like for like, they're comparing Starmer's Labour party to - at worst - Cameron's 2010 mob or, at best, Blair (under which I personally lived quite happily).

 

The 'Tories' they're looking to replace have had Chancellors who've been fined a million quid for tax avoidance, people who've promoted unknown blonde strumpets to the Lords presumably in exchange for favours, two home secretaries who've tried to actively stoke race wars, a former deputy chair who claims the Mayor of London is controlled by Bin Laden, people who had lockdown parties, gave their mates Covid contracts, have second jobs with a right wing news channels, a former PM who attends conventions with Steve Bannon, they lie, cheat, steal and abuse at every opportunity. 

 

One party is a centrist party, the other is comprised now largely of gangsters funded by shady foreign money. There's no comparison whatsoever IMO. 

You’re right mate but people have been through so much shit in the last 14 years that we want a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Something to at least look forward to. While getting the tories out is certainly that, Labour aren’t exactly wetting the appetite. Right now they’re just the alternative to the tories. 

[Section_31]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

You’re right mate but people have been through so much shit in the last 14 years that we want a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Something to at least look forward to. While getting the tories out is certainly that, Labour aren’t exactly wetting the appetite. Right now they’re just the alternative to the tories. 

 

Said cretins have been the ones voting for the Tories all this time, including the 'red wall'. The only reason  they're turning to Labour is because Truss put their mortgages up. Half these cunts would vote for Johnson in a flash if he came back. 

[Bjornebye]

17 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

 

Said cretins have been the ones voting for the Tories all this time, including the 'red wall'. The only reason  they're turning to Labour is because Truss put their mortgages up. Half these cunts would vote for Johnson in a flash if he came back. 

No, some are. Plenty of dyed in the wool Labour supporters aren’t all of a sudden jumping with joy that things are gonna get better. Of course to steal Blair’s slogan “things can only get better” and a return to what life was like in the UK under Blair’s Labour would be ten times better than now. 
 

Im behind Starmer despite a few things I’m against him on. I just don’t trust a few others in the party. Reeves being one.