[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I've no desire to get too deeply into this, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by labelling people we disagree with as "thick".
I know (for example) that we quite strongly disagree over the voting system, but I'd like to think we can brush over that quite amicably.
Similarly, while I find PoTG's unnecessary question marks on the Postcard thread quite infuriating, I'd like to think I can still deal with them quite reasonably on any other issue.
Of course, this doesn't excuse anybody who's very obviously taking the piss, no matter what their viewpoint.





The twats.

Beautifully engineered

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We're all free to make that judgment on anything we might post on here.
I've suggested that a few posters have undergone a lobotomy, but that was in response to some straight up aliens in black choppers pissing in the water supply type shit.
I don't see any point in reacting to people who either a) genuinely hold a different point of view or b) are on a wind up (when they otherwise post sensibly enough).

Rolf Harris painted nicely.
Giggsy was a great footballer.
Hitler was kind to children.
He was also a vegetarian.

Perverse engagement is a blight. In my view. Other views are of course available.

In the meantime, I cannot cast the first stone at those who mock.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Rolf Harris painted nicely.
Giggsy was a great footballer.
Hitler was kind to children.
He was also a vegetarian.

Perverse engagement is a blight. In my view. Other views are of course available.

In the meantime, I cannot cast the first stone at those who mock.

We can choose how to engage.
Earlier I chose to engage with somebody I disagreed with by making a bunch of Asterix/Gaul related jokes. I found that amusing (which is really all that matters).
Whoever it was I was responding to may well have read it and thought I'm a twat.
Really, the important thing is that we get out of this forum what we're looking for. I suspect PoTG finds this whole exchange very amusing (I find it vaguely entertaining, or I'd have given up already).
I know you have good reasons for ignoring people, but when it comes to calling people thick I'm reminded of the advice I was always given about ignoring people I didn't like at school.




Even if they were being twats.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Back to question. Have MPs such as Lisa Nandy, Peter Kyle, Yvette Cooper, a few smartly dressed white heterosexual men and Marsha or Dawn* do the talking on stuff they know about .... Hide Emily Thornberry, Lloyd Russell Moyle and Marsha or Dawn*

* #probablynotgoingtocomeacrossasfunny

 

[Rdodge30]

've no desire to get too deeply into this, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by labelling people we disagree with as "thick".

Very, very common attitude on NSC especially in threads about politics

Anyone who disagrees with a viewpoint is wrong, thick, gullible and ‘needs educating’

Some of the worst offenders are here on this thread for sure.

and of course the same old same old blame Brexit yawn yawn

 

[Nobby]

will you be one?

Maybe he’s off to Rwanda - Nice this time of year.

Allegedly.

 

[Fungus]

<ignore>

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Very, very common attitude on NSC especially in threads about politics

Anyone who disagrees with a viewpoint is wrong, thick, gullible and ‘needs educating’

Some of the worst offenders are here on this thread for sure.

and of course the same old same old blame Brexit yawn yawn

I'm not sure that's fair. There are posters on here who have little time for the political party I prefer, or have different views to me about Brexit, but we chat amicably.

The first time I ever put someone on ignore was because they started a thread about me. The second was someone who decided to snidely misrepresent my position after losing an argument. The third made racist comments....

So calling someone thick (and putting them on ignore) sometimes simply saves valuable time

 

[Rdodge30]

I'm not sure that's fair. There are posters on here who have little time for the political party I prefer, or have different views to me about Brexit, but we chat amicably.

The first time I ever put someone on ignore was because they started a thread about me. The second was someone who decided to snidely misrepresent my position after losing an argument. The third made racist comments....

So calling someone thick (and putting them on ignore) sometimes simply saves valuable time

As I said it is very very common on NSC if I had the time or inclination I expect I could find upward of a hundred posts on here referring to people who have or who will vote Tory as stupid gullible thick in need of educating etc etc etc etc

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As I said it is very very common on NSC if I had the time or inclination I expect I could find upward of a hundred posts on here referring to people who have or who will vote Tory as stupid gullible thick in need of educating etc etc etc etc

I'm sure you're right.

 

[Perkino]

As I said it is very very common on NSC if I had the time or inclination I expect I could find upward of a hundred posts on here referring to people who have or who will vote Tory as stupid gullible thick in need of educating etc etc etc etc

Ironically a large percentage of the most educated groups in the UK also vote Tory. I am happy to say I have voted for candidates from all 3 of the major parties at different stages of my life for a varying number of reasons and I don't think any of those times were because I was being stupid, gullible or thick.

What irritates me is that more people choose not to vote than any winning majority I've ever seen, often citing the idea that 'voting is pointless as nothing changes'

It does seem as though none of the political parties have really got much right over the last decade as the Tories have been reported as being woeful yet nobody else can muster up a party able to challenge them. I hope Starmer can generate some momentum and policies that supporters can get behind because the more competition between the political parties the more they have to alter their policies to benefit a wider proportion of society, meaning whoever wins is likely to be less useless than if they had been left unchallenged

 

[Pavilionaire]

This thread has been derailed, but it needs to get back on topic because it's by-election week and Starmer will be in an even stronger position come the weekend.

Assuming he is, he can - and should - get bolder and more creative with his policy announcements. Beyond the obvious clear blue water between the Tories and Labour on corruption, sleaze and self-interest there is nothing fundamentally different in core policy, but the country needs more than a nice bloke tinkering. The two strongest leaders we've had in the last 50 years have been Thatcher and Blair, and they both had a vision for Britain that brought about real change. Since Blair we've been drifting into mid-table obscurity. At the very least Starmer needs:

1. A post-Brexit plan to rebuild our shattered manufacturing industry.
2. A humane but practical solution to our migrant crisis.
3. The restoration of parliament's loss of authority.
4. The end to these destructive strikes and a new relationship between government and the public sector and armed forces so that sufficient people of good quality start applying for those jobs once more.

 

[beorhthelm]

...
4. The end to these destructive strikes and a new relationship between government and the public sector and armed forces so that sufficient people of good quality starting applying for those jobs once more.

you saying the people that go into public sector and forces are not very good quality?

Starmer seems to have taken an approach to take the centre, follow current spending policy, throw a couple of rich bashing policies in and be done. and it'll probably work, certainly coming across as pragmatic. do wonder what he thinks can be done on the immigration issue though, right now the government has a shit policy and everyone else has no policy (stating you wont do the shit policy is not a policy itself). it shouldnt really be an issue, but its being made into one so a sensible policy could mean difference between winning and hung parliament.

 

[Weststander]

This thread has been derailed, but it needs to get back on topic because it's by-election week and Starmer will be in an even stronger position come the weekend.

Assuming he is, he can - and should - get bolder and more creative with his policy announcements. Beyond the obvious clear blue water between the Tories and Labour on corruption, sleaze and self-interest there is nothing fundamentally different in core policy, but the country needs more than a nice bloke tinkering. The two strongest leaders we've had in the last 50 years have been Thatcher and Blair, and they both had a vision for Britain that brought about real change. Since Blair we've been drifting into mid-table obscurity. At the very least Starmer needs:

1. A post-Brexit plan to rebuild our shattered manufacturing industry.
2. A humane but practical solution to our migrant crisis.
3. The restoration of parliament's loss of authority.
4. The end to these destructive strikes and a new relationship between government and the public sector and armed forces so that sufficient people of good quality starting applying for those jobs once more.

For me, some meat on the bone.

- working with the EU on closer economic/borders ties. The vast majority would accept that now, eg I know Brexiteers with regrets.
- NHS recruitment at all clinical levels including from overseas.
- roads maintenance programme, this isn’t trivial, they’re incredibly dangerous especially to two wheelers.
- a huge investment in mental health services including CAMHS and Wellbeing.
- tertiary level apprenticeships. We talk the talk, but firms won’t commit on cost grounds.
- housebuilding, planning reform. Millions sofa surf, live in cramped conditions, in B&B’s or slum landlord properties.

Starmer/Reeve really should really be cracking on with policies now. To enter government cold will waste vital months and years. Setting up commissions and reviews led by the ‘great and good’ always takes epochs in this country.

 

[rogersix]

Maybe he’s off to Rwanda - Nice this time of year.

Allegedly.

and safe; very, very safe

 

[rogersix]

Ironically a large percentage of the most educated groups in the UK also vote Tory. I am happy to say I have voted for candidates from all 3 of the major parties at different stages of my life for a varying number of reasons and I don't think any of those times were because I was being stupid, gullible or thick.

What irritates me is that more people choose not to vote than any winning majority I've ever seen, often citing the idea that 'voting is pointless as nothing changes'

It does seem as though none of the political parties have really got much right over the last decade as the Tories have been reported as being woeful yet nobody else can muster up a party able to challenge them. I hope Starmer can generate some momentum and policies that supporters can get behind because the more competition between the political parties the more they have to alter their policies to benefit a wider proportion of society, meaning whoever wins is likely to be less useless than if they had been left unchallenged

good post, i agree entirely, but would add, i voted tory once (thatch), and i do think i was gullible. black wednesday and the following years have taught me that. i was astonished to learn recently that the labour party has paid back more of the national debt since the war! the tories have never been the party of fiscal responsibilty, and that's their shtick! and now look what's happened,......... ah well!

 

[Pavilionaire]

you saying the people that go into public sector and forces are not very good quality?

I'm saying that the reduction in real pay will have put off people from entering the profession that definitely would have been quality. It's not a simple as "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" because many public sectors jobs are a vocation, a calling and not just about the money.

I think part of the reason the government haven't agreed to pay rises is because they don't value the staff enough, and they rely too much on people's vocational calling and aversion to change for them to remain in place regardless of pay. I think that is disgusting, and I support higher pay for teachers, nurses, junior doctors, the police etc.

 

[Weststander]

good post, i agree entirely, but would add, i voted tory once (thatch), and i do think i was gullible. black wednesday and the following years have taught me that. i was astonished to learn recently that the labour party has paid back more of the national debt since the war! the tories have never been the party of fiscal responsibilty, and that's their shtick! and now look what's happened,......... ah well!

That didn’t happen in absolute or relative terms, Brown started by preaching prudence, abandoning that in 2001. Then embarking on significant annual deficits, with public debt spiralling from 2007 to the current day.

In addition to national debt below, off balance sheet we’ve been left with a hidden £300b of debt on the public sector from the Major/Blair/Brown experiment with PFI. It only gave the nation £55b of assets.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...arillion-capita-financial-crash-a8202661.html

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm saying that the reduction in real pay will have put off people from entering the profession that definitely would have been quality. It's not a simple as "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" because many public sectors jobs are a vocation, a calling and not just about the money.

I think part of the reason the government haven't agreed to pay rises is because they don't value the staff enough, and they rely too much on people's vocational calling and aversion to change for them to remain in place regardless of pay. I think that is disgusting, and I support higher pay for teachers, nurses, junior doctors, the police etc.

i think government didnt agree pay rises because the treasury see the total wage bill, with the averages in mid to high 30's and the pension costs of 20-30% on top. how many would take a small hit on pension for more money in their pocket, not offered to them? anyway, this is the Starmer thread and his policy was to talk to each group about paying the same.

 

[jcdenton08]

In my view we have to get behind Starmer, he’s the only option. It’s time for the far left to grow up and accept it. We need the Tories out.