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

[The Clamp]

You mean if? A lot of Tory voters have just walked away from the party as its way to leftwing, contrary to what is claimed on here if you look what they have done rather than what they say. So there is a chance Reform could replace the Tories and take power. Unlikely maybe but in the age of Trump and Brexit it is pure hubris to rule it out.

As for a period of stability could you say what you mean as I just see a downward spiral.

You think the Tory part are too left wing?

Are you a bit mental?

They’ve just forced 38 asylum seekers onto a barge. A barge declared unsafe for habitation by a Fire Brigade union. A barge that has just had to be evacuated as it’s proved too dangerous for humans to inhabit .

They’ve just declared they plan to campaign on a “scrap the ECHR” ticket.

 

[drew]

You have a weird definition of what working class is - if someone owns a house they cannot be working class - many people who rent houses cannot be working class.

The working class today is the same as two centuries ago - those who work by hand or brain for a wage.

That's the oddest definition of working class I have ever seen. You singlehandedly have pretty much eliminate the middle classes.

Those that own property and have worked hard to get it aren't going to risk losing that by joining a revolution.

You can write as much as you like but you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[drew]

You think the Tory part are too left wing?

Are you a bit mental?

They’ve just forced 38 asylum seekers onto a barge. A barge declared unsafe for habitation by a Fire Brigade union. A barge that has just had to be evacuated as it’s proved too dangerous for humans to inhabit .

They’ve just declared they plan to campaign on a “scrap the ECHR” ticket.

I'm guessing he's either a student or, like Corbyn, never actually grew out of being a student.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm guessing he's either a student or, like Corbyn, never actually grew out of being a student.

He’s one of the previously banned trolls, isn’t he?

 

[BenGarfield]

Just to remind you that Corbyn didn't win an election, in fact he had the worst defeat in an election since Major. The left might want to blame Starmer for losing but the reality is Corbyn was inept as a leader. As I said before, to win an election you have to win the centre ground. You seem to forget also that the 2005 election was post Iraq war yet still Blair won a third term.

Had Corbyn done what you suggest and got rid of the 'blairites' the party would never see power because they'd never get the crucial vote from the middle ground.

As for Starmer and brexit, exactly what position did he take that upset Corbyn other than the fact that Starmer was for Remain whilst Corbyn just didn't really commit and everyone could see that (probably because he was at heart a Brexiteer).

Finally, the libdems only won a further 12 seats and that wasn't going to put a dent in the labour majority from 2001.

You can try and rewrite history as much as you like but this country will never, and never has, voted for a far left labour leader. It's easy to list a load of policies but not so easy to identify exactly how it will be paid for.

As JRG pointed out the policies he outlined and proposed in Labours 2017 manifesto were extremely popular in the country and in no way could be charactersised as extremely left wing or impossible to achieve. The mistake McDonald and Corbyns economics team made was to couch them in In a neo-liberal patina by using terms such as "fiscal responsibility" and "costed". As famous Berwick resident, well known extreme lefty, and probably the greatest economist this country has ever produced, John Maynard Keynes once said, "Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Anything we can actually do, we can afford."

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You think the Tory part are too left wing?

Are you a bit mental?

They’ve just forced 38 asylum seekers onto a barge. A barge declared unsafe for habitation by a Fire Brigade union. A barge that has just had to be evacuated as it’s proved too dangerous for humans to inhabit .

They’ve just declared they plan to campaign on a “scrap the ECHR” ticket.

A bit?

And by mental and mad we mean inequipped to operate at the apparently chosen level.

For example, in my own case, if I said I'm all set to re-plaster downstairs, I'd be mad.

It's an allegorical metaphor.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's the oddest definition of working class I have ever seen. You singlehandedly have pretty much eliminate the middle classes.

Those that own property and have worked hard to get it aren't going to risk losing that by joining a revolution.

You can write as much as you like but you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

He said if someone owns a house they can't be working class. That's eliminating much of the working class by labeling them middle class, rather than eliminating the middle classes, Shirley?

It's still bollocks, though.

 

[drew]

As JRG pointed out the policies he outlined and proposed in Labours 2017 manifesto were extremely popular in the country and in no way could be charactersised as extremely left wing or impossible to achieve. The mistake McDonald and Corbyns economics team made was to couch them in In a neo-liberal patina by using terms such as "fiscal responsibility" and "costed". As famous Berwick resident, well known extreme lefty, and probably the greatest economist this country has ever produced, John Maynard Keynes once said, "Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Anything we can actually do, we can afford."

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

Pretty much the same as me (although I quit long before Corbyn became leader and rejoined as soon as Starmer was elected).

 

[The Clamp]

A bit?

And by mental and mad we mean inequipped to operate at the apparently chosen level.

For example, in my own case, if I said I'm all set to re-plaster downstairs, I'd be mad.

It's an allegorical metaphor.

Seconded.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

JRG seems critical of everything except Marx, ignore many basic facts and inventing their own history. two banks where propped up and paid back their debt many years ago. however in some parallel universe this leads 15 years later to doctors not getting a pay rise.

though at least Marx understood some principles of economics, you cant get everything for nothing. Keynes didnt believe that either, supposed to pay back everything you borrow, he just says there's a lot of money to be borrowed.

 

[jcdenton08]

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

Spot on.

 

[BenGarfield]

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

Yes the government can pay for thigs if it wants to. Government finances are not the same as a household. it just needs the political will to do so.

 

[drew]

Yes the government can pay for thigs if it wants to. Government finances are not the same as a household. it just needs the political will to do so.

Modern Monetarism, print as much as you like when you like. I might try that at home!!

 

[jcdenton08]

Modern Monetarism, print as much as you like when you like. I might try that at home!!

And it’s not like inflation is a worr… oh

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Modern Monetarism, print as much as you like when you like. I might try that at home!!

Isn't that literally the opposite of moneterism?

Anyway, I just noticed BenGarfield is from Crawley now (I'm pretty sure their profile used to say Moscow which is presumably a story in itself), so I've decided they're the same person as Crawley Dingo.
This would explain nothing and makes no sense whatsoever, but much more importantly I find the idea that they're wacked out on so many drugs that they pull a Jekyll/Hyde every few days amusing.

 

[Wokeworrier]

Pretty much the same as me (although I quit long before Corbyn became leader and rejoined as soon as Starmer was elected). But I still voted for Corbyn"s Labour party at the last General election.

Corrected for accuracy

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

That's the oddest definition of working class I have ever seen. You singlehandedly have pretty much eliminate the middle classes.

Those that own property and have worked hard to get it aren't going to risk losing that by joining a revolution.

You can write as much as you like but you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Every wing of sociology defines the middle class as those who own in small businesses, work as professionals or as farmers (and these days many professionals cannot be considered middle-class because of how their wages have been slashed (e.g. teacher and doctors).

The problem with your 'ownership of property' model is that is it based on a fallacy. Ireland has the highest rate of home ownership in Europe at close to 80% - the problem is that most of those don't actually own their own home - the bank does - and most of those with a mortgage are struggling to make the repayments. The average length of a mortgage in Ireland over the last 20 years has gone from 20 years to 35 years and 45 year mortgages are not unheard of these days. The greatest risk to any homeowner with a mortgage is the home being repossessed by the bank - again the capitalist market dictating whether someone has a roof over their head or not.

There seems to be this daft perception that socialism means taking homes off of people who have bought their homes - that is nonsense - and only an idiot would claim this. Indeed those who have been most vocal in arguing for increased protection for homeowners are socialists. In Ireland far-left MPs (they are called TDs in Ireland) have called for the fixing of all mortgage repayments at affordable levels, the provision of full redress for homeowners who bought houses that were built with dodgy materials (and are now falling down), the maintenance of the ban on evictions from rented property (it was abolished in April and there has been a surge in eviction notices since), and the capping of all rent at affordable levels (most rental property in Ireland is now owned by multi-national property companies or hedge funds - because it is a highly lucrative business - and they pay little or no tax).

To outline how daft the situation - my daughter lives in London and she rents a plain run-of-the-mill apartment with her partner. I live in a small town in the went of Ireland (roughly 10,000 pop) - the rent for a two bed apartment in my town is higher than what my daughter is paying in London. It is now costing upwards of €600 a month to rent a room in a house - and when they become available they are snapped up in an hour. A room to rent in a small 3 bed terraced house was advertised last week for €800 a month plus utilities - dozens of people contacted the person renting the room and it was gone in an hour. What is considered an 'affordable' house in Ireland under Ireland pro-big business government costs €380,000 - it the capitalist market gone mad - and it is strangling those who are trying to 'get on the property ladder'.

Your so-called middle-class have followed Maggie Thatcher and are now largely in the dustbin of history - the middle-class has been decimated by monopoly capitalism - and the reality is that those you consider middle-class are the first to move into opposition to capitalist policies because they have the most to lose.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Just to point out where I stand, I'm a labour member, I did cancel when Corbyn was leader but rejoined last year. I'm not against the nationalisation of certain services, in fact I'm very much for it, eg Railways and utilities, but quite clearly Corbyn's manifesto was not as attractive to the electorate as was Johnson's Brexit promises (and just for clarity, I vote remain).

It's easy to quote JMK but at the end of the day, things have to be paid for.

JRG seems critical of Brown's propping up the banks but if he hadn't and they collapsed, it would be the very electorate that would lose their savings.

1. All the opinion polls on policies indicated that the policies put forward by Corbyn were popular with a majority of the electorate - the election was decided on the issue of completing Brexit (and Starmer purposely scuttled the LP on that issue)

2. Of course things have to be paid for - that is why the government collects tax. Let's look at what has happened to taxation since Thatcher became prime minister - over a 45 year period - the top rate of tax (for the very wealthy) was cut from 75% to 45% (a rate which the Tories now plan to abolish) and the investment income surcharge was abolished. The basic rate was also reduced from 33% to 23% - but was offset by a raft of regressive and indirect taxes such as increased National Insurance contributions, VAT and local taxes (the tax cuts for the rich in Ireland were even greater). On top of that the rich can hire an army of accountants to utilise every tax dodging scheme going. So - yes stuff has to be paid for - the problem is that the burden of taxation globally has shifted in the last 50 years from the rich to the poor. In America someone earning $1million a day has a lower tax burden than someone earning $500 a week. But the capitalist class doesn't give a sh*t about paying for stuff - paying tax is only for poor people.

3. Every economy needs a banking system - the problem wasn't that Brown bailed out the banks - it as how he did it. He socialised the gambling debts of the bankers, spivs and speculators and he dumped the cost of that onto working class people. While the odd speculator went to the wall - the capitalist class as a whole were completely insulated from the impact of their bad gambling debts. In the five years after the crash the richest 1% globally doubled their wealth - while working class people lost their jobs, saw their wages cut (back to the doctor's demands for pay restoration today - 15 years later), saw attacking on their working conditions, and overall saw poverty and deprivation increase significantly. In 2017 Gordon Brown came out and said that the bankers should have been jailed for their fraudulent and dishonest behaviour - how magnanimous of him - he knew about their fraudulent and dishonest behaviour before he every had to consider bailing out the banks. Capitalism thrives on fraudulent and dishonest behaviour - and has done since it was founded 300 years ago.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Every wing of sociology defines the middle class as those who own in small businesses, work as professionals or as farmers (and these days many professionals cannot be considered middle-class because of how their wages have been slashed (e.g. teacher and doctors).

I'm sorry, but I know plenty of young doctors and while I have every sympathy for how hard they work the idea that they can be considered "working class" is nonsense on stilts.