Keir Starmer

[Poor Scouser T]

The idea that we are all that matters on earth is the trouble. We may be gone and dust for a million years and fish be having barbecues. but the planet will be fine. 

[Gnasher]

On 17/06/2023 at 00:33, Captain Howdy said:

Streeting saying high earners must pay more tax 

 

 

Labour has committed to keeping both the top rate and capital gains tax unaltered. It has also shelved plans for a wealth tax on the country's increasing number of billionaires. 

 

If you can show me a link where this has changed or other plans for the wealthy to pay more I'll give credit to Streeting/Reeves and co.

[Gnasher]

On 17/06/2023 at 00:33, Captain Howdy said:

Sorry double post.

[Gnasher]

12 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

The idea that we are all that matters on earth is the trouble. We may be gone and dust for a million years and fish be having barbecues. but the planet will be fine. 

 

Thats reassuring. Not sure these fish will be enjoying a barbie. Before death they might as well have been living on one though.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/dead-fish-texas-climate-change.html

 

 

 

[Creator Supreme]

Alright fine, it will add to the destruction of life as we know it, the human race, and possibly many other species too! Whichever way you want to slice it, it's a bad idea!

[Poor Scouser T]

11 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Thats reassuring. Not sure these fish will be enjoying a barbie. Before death they might as well have been living on one though.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/dead-fish-texas-climate-change.html

 

 

 

Like I've said happy to argue with you but not a tweet or  link. Form an opinion then we can discuss.

[Gnasher]

15 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

Like I've said happy to argue with you but not a tweet or  link. Form an opinion then we can discuss.

 

Its off topic here but my opinion is its obviously not just man suffering from climate change. The link of dead fish being just an example to disprove the point you were making in your previous post.

[Poor Scouser T]

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

 

Its off topic here but my opinion is its obviously not just man suffering from climate change. The link of dead fish being just an example to disprove the point you were making in your previous post.

What that the earth will survive? Of course it will. We wont but crocodiles and many insect species will have never had it so good.

[Bjornebye]

1 hour ago, Creator Supreme said:

Alison McGovern?

 

Yeah, self-serving bitch. 

 

59 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

The planet will not be destroyed it is a myth. We might. Essential difference.

 

56 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

The idea that we are all that matters on earth is the trouble. We may be gone and dust for a million years and fish be having barbecues. but the planet will be fine. 

 

Fuck me, the fish will be having barbecues? Can you post whatever you're drinking today on the beer thread please Ravishing Rick Rude. 

[Gnasher]

1 minute ago, Poor Scouser T said:

What that the earth will survive? Of course it will. We wont but crocodiles and may insect species will have never had it so good.

 

"The fish will be having a barbecue" I know you were being flipent but unfortunately its wide of the mark. I agree the earth may, although how much it'll be damaged is impossible to gauge. As for the fish and animals it'll probably be bleak. As it was for the fish in the link I posted above.

 

Anyway not really the thread.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Poor Scouser T said:

The idea that we are all that matters on earth is the trouble. We may be gone and dust for a million years and fish be having barbecues. but the planet will be fine. 

Mate, the Earth's sixth mass extinction event is underway and we're the cunts driving it. That's not great.

[Bjornebye]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Mate, the Earth's sixth mass extinction event is underway and we're the cunts driving it. That's not great.

 

Remmie can't drive 

[Jack the Sipper]

On 14/06/2023 at 17:18, Jairzinho said:

Well, selling their message wouldn't be as easy. Their leader wouldn't be allowed on Question Time once a month, nor would daily national newspapers do their bidding. In fact, the likes of the Guardian would (do) guard the parameters of acceptable debate and ridicule them. 

 

 

 

On 14/06/2023 at 19:54, Rushies tash said:

 

It's a good idea, but there's absolutely no way a left wing party would be given any airtime - certainly not in the way Farage was seemingly pushed onto every BBC political program a few years back, or 'think tanks' like the IEA. Corbyn's treatment should tell you how any left wing alternative would be treated by the media. They'd be finished before they even began. And this is also why the Labour leadership will never allow PR. They'd haemorrhage votes the moment a moderately credible left wing alternative appeared.

 

I think that sounds defeatist, conspiratorial even. Lefties like Owen Jones and Ash Sarkar get plenty of time on mainstream TV, while Britain's favourite Communist, Aaron Bastani is a regular guest on GBfuckingNews of all places, breaking bread with the like of Martin Daubney and Kelvin the Cunt MacKenzie. Besides, a successful campaigning party doesn't have to rely on mass exposure. I see reports of an Organise Corbyn Inspired Socialist Alliance planning to field candidates in strategic seats, including Starmer's, so there's obviously leftists taking a different view on this.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyns-wife-laura-alvarez-in-group-aiming-to-unseat-sir-keir-starmer-at-next-election-12903917#:~:text=Laura Alvarez is part of,husband standing for the opposition.

[Jack the Sipper]

I think a more fundamental obstacle to a successful left-wing party is that there is no 'left-wing' as such. More than that, the left are as diametrically opposed on as many issues as they're united on.

 

Trans issues, tackling environmental change, the EU and Brexit, critical race theory, the existence of the monarchy, to name a few examples, are all issues that divide people on the left. And that's before we even get to the idea that they would be hoping to appeal to the 'working man who wants a bit left' as prominent trans activist Alan Cummings puts it. I get the feeling that his idea of what the left-leaning working man wants differs from mine, although I could be wrong.

[skend04]

11 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

I think a more fundamental obstacle to a successful left-wing party is that there is no 'left-wing' as such. More than that, the left are as diametrically opposed on as many issues as they're united on.

 

Trans issues, tackling environmental change, the EU and Brexit, critical race theory, the existence of the monarchy, to name a few examples, are all issues that divide people on the left. And that's before we even get to the idea that they would be hoping to appeal to the 'working man who wants a bit left' as prominent trans activist Alan Cummings puts it. I get the feeling that his idea of what the left-leaning working man wants differs from mine, although I could be wrong.

 

That's not how to spell LGBT.

[Jack the Sipper]

5 minutes ago, skend04 said:

 

That's not how to spell LGBT.

 

I know. 

 

"Cumming, a long-serving campaigner for LGBT+ rights, is particularly outspoken on trans issue..."

 

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/10/20/alan-cumming-pronouns-trans-ally-gender-coming-out-circumcision-genital-mutilation/

[Jack the Sipper]

On 14/06/2023 at 22:19, Bjornebye said:

 

Because capitalism, right wing methods and centrist flip flopping has worked so well? 

 

Get your head out of your arse mate. People are pissed off and have every right to want change even if it's radical because what we have had that hasn't been radical has been shite for a lot of people. 

 

Left wing people have every right to want a change. 

 

What? I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be pissed off with the way things are and demand radical change. I fully get that, and I'm all for it, even if I might not agree with any of the demands in particular. I want radical change in a couple of areas, but I don't expect to get it from the Labour Party that I still support and that's looking to win elections in a small c conservative country dominated by a right wing wing press, and that's the point I've been making. 

 

I've long been a republican and, even in this day and age, it's a pretty radical stance to take. So much so, that even a life-long republican like Corbyn ducked the issue when he became leader. Was I disappointed? Fuck yes. That could've have been a golden opportunity to push the issue onto the front pages, but I understood why he didn't want to go down that road as a leader, and I didn't spending most of my time on here cryarsing like a fucking emo about it and about him. No, I supported him regardless because my desire to kick the Tories out and get Labour in was overriding. And because, as I said, I understood the politics of his decision.

 

 

[skend04]

14 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

I know. 

 

"Cumming, a long-serving campaigner for LGBT+ rights, is particularly outspoken on trans issue..."

 

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/10/20/alan-cumming-pronouns-trans-ally-gender-coming-out-circumcision-genital-mutilation/

 

Says it right there. Being particularly outspoken on trans issues might be because it's something that's dominating the headlines right now?

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

What? I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be pissed off with the way things are and demand radical change. I fully get that, and I'm all for it, even if I might not agree with any of the demands in particular. I want radical change in a couple of areas, but I don't expect to get it from the Labour Party that I still support and that's looking to win elections in a small c conservative country dominated by a right wing wing press, and that's the point I've been making. 

 

I've long been a republican and, even in this day and age, it's a pretty radical stance to take. So much so, that even a life-long republican like Corbyn ducked the issue when he became leader. Was I disappointed? Fuck yes. That could've have been a golden opportunity to push the issue onto the front pages, but I understood why he didn't want to go down that road as a leader, and I didn't spending most of my time on here cryarsing like a fucking emo about it and about him. No, I supported him regardless because my desire to kick the Tories out and get Labour in was overriding. And because, as I said, I understood the politics of his decision.

 

 

Comparing Corbyn and his decisions to

this Labour lot is a serious stretch. 

[Jack the Sipper]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

Comparing Corbyn and his decisions to

this Labour lot is a serious stretch. 

 

Of course it is. This lot are more centrist, more cautious, less radical. 

 

They're also more likely to win an election. 

 

If a mainstream political party, founded on the idea of winning elections, puts its ideas and beliefs to the fore, regardless of what that does to its chances of winning, then it ceases to be a political party and becomes a protest group. It sounds cynical, but whoever thinks that politics isn't a cynical business is naive.

[Jack the Sipper]

16 minutes ago, skend04 said:

 

Says it right there. Being particularly outspoken on trans issues might be because it's something that's dominating the headlines right now?

 

 

I haven't a clue what point you're trying to make here. I called him a trans activist, you took issue with that, calling him 'LGBT', I posted an article in Pink News that calls him a trans ally and someone outspoken on trans issues, and you respond with that?

 

Ok, let's assume that he's not a trans activist, just your common-or-garden LGBT+ activist. You win. 

 

Alan Cumming: "Man 'O the Working Man that wants a Bit Left".

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

 

Of course it is. This lot are more centrist, more cautious, less radical. 

 

They're also more likely to win an election. 

 

If a mainstream political party, founded on the idea of winning elections, puts its ideas and beliefs to the fore, regardless of what that does to its chances of winning, then it ceases to be a political party and becomes a protest group. It sounds cynical, but whoever thinks that politics isn't a cynical business is naive.

My main worry with Starmer's Labour is that I'm not convinced that they can win.  Their idea of making themselves "electable" by presenting as a more acceptable version of the Tories is the same that was tried by Kinnock and later by Milliband.  Because they are still obsessed with hunting down the last remnants of democratic Socialism, they are failing to present a credible alternative to the Tories.  They need to give people more of a reason to vote for them.

 

God, I hope I'm wrong.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, Jack the Sipper said:

Trans issues, tackling environmental change, the EU and Brexit, critical race theory, the existence of the monarchy, to name a few examples, are all issues that divide people on the left.

Do they?

 

I don't think you'll find anyone on the left opposed to tackling climate change or an honest teaching of history, or wholeheartedly in favour of the monarchy.  Opposition to trans rights and the EU are very much right-wing positions, although you will find a small minority of people on the left who favour women's spaces being reserved for cis women only and some who think that the increased opportunity for wholesale nationalisations outside the EU trumps all the obvious damage that Brexit has done.

 

The main issue dividing the left in the UK is whether the Labour Party can ever be a party for working class people again. (FWIW, I think it can; the party is bigger than Starmer.)

[Section_31]

25 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Do they?

 

I don't think you'll find anyone on the left opposed to tackling climate change or an honest teaching of history, or wholeheartedly in favour of the monarchy.  Opposition to trans rights and the EU are very much right-wing positions, although you will find a small minority of people on the left who favour women's spaces being reserved for cis women only and some who think that the increased opportunity for wholesale nationalisations outside the EU trumps all the obvious damage that Brexit has done.

 

The main issue dividing the left in the UK is whether the Labour Party can ever be a party for working class people again. (FWIW, I think it can; the party is bigger than Starmer.)

 

Eh? Like JK Rowling and Graham Linehan and Sharon Davies? 

 

Besides which, they're not 'trans rights', they're the right to do stuff that's controversial or will/does have an impact on other people in a detrimental way.

 

Being allowed to go to school is a right, as is being allowed to sit at the front of a bus or not be beaten to death by a copper. 

 

These are not the issues being fought over right now, it's things like 'should a man who identifies as a woman be allowed to run a home for abused women', or should a male weight lifter who identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in the sport and trounce everyone else in the competition, or should a kid be allowed to have their penis lopped off.  

 

I've said it before but these debates are almost exclusively about men transitioning to women, and not about women transitioning to men. Why is that? Are women more 'bigoted' than men? Or is it that men's safety and life achievements aren't impacted in the same way? I'd venture the latter. 

[Strontium]

I think in the USA there's more of a tendency for a person's position on gender ideology to fall along left/right lines, that's vehemently not the case here. Our trade union is one of the most left-wing in the UK and the general secretary's wife founded Woman's Place UK.